Dec. 8, 2007, 9:26 a.m. CST
yawn, golden navigation device etc... blabla
Dec. 8, 2007, 9:32 a.m. CST
And thats never a good sign...
Dec. 8, 2007, 9:33 a.m. CST
What a dull mess. And McKellen as a drunken misanthropic bear? About as fitting as Celine Dion as Darth Vader. There is one and only reason why he was cast. Or, rather, three reasons - all three having been filmed back-to-back in New Zealand.
Dec. 8, 2007, 9:48 a.m. CST
I couldn't stand her. Daniel Craig and Sam Elliot were badass though.
Dec. 8, 2007, 9:52 a.m. CST
The book itself is quite confusing with it's ideas, Philip Pullman never being quite sure of what the fuck he's trying to convey. It would have taken a true master to produce a fantastic screenplay adapted from it. The sequels will be even harder to adapt. But when the studio steps in and tells them to lop off the end of the movie because it's too 'dark' and also change up a few other things, the movie's never gonna feel satisfying. It's like if Peter Jackson had been forced to cut the end of Fellowship of the Ring because the studio didn't want the cliffhanger element of Frodo and Sam going it alone and Merry and Pippin being taken by the orcs. If they were at Lothlorien and instead of carrying on just spouted some bullshit about what was going to happen in the next movie.
Dec. 8, 2007, 10 a.m. CST
Thanks god for capone. I couldn't take another semi-positive review of this movie. The problems he had with the film are the problems with the books. Bland characters that don't fit, no explanation for why they do things, no character development. New Line probably won't recover from this disaster. There are so many good series that could have been adopted, but they went for the "safe young adult" series. Oh well. That's what they get for not learning from all the other poorly filmed and chosen adaptations over the last couple of years (Eragon, I'm looking at you).
Dec. 8, 2007, 10:16 a.m. CST
by Pound Sand
I'm guessing the next one is a DVD-only release at best. And there won't be a third at all, because nobody in Hollywood has the stomach to trot out an anti-Christian message of killing a fraud false god space alien. Particularly when the first movie doesn't seriously acknowledge the underlying religious themes. Unless we're talking Scientology, then maybe.
Dec. 8, 2007, 10:37 a.m. CST
by future help
Dec. 8, 2007, 10:38 a.m. CST
by Merriman Lyon
Just read the book and saw the movie: I have failed to detect the anti-religious message everyone's going on about. But I'm surprised no-one's complained about the blatant anti-science message in the story. Performing obscene operations on kids? Messing with the atoms, particles or dark matter ('dust') of which the universe is made? This is very clearly a story about the evil of uncontrolled scientific experimentation. Where is the Scientific League of America when we need them? Why aren't they screaming out to have this movie banned? Well, I for one, am going to take a stand in the name of Science. DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE - it will turn you into a creationist.
Dec. 8, 2007, 10:46 a.m. CST
The adaptation was decent, and had they kept the filmed ending in, then I think it might have done far better.<p> I do think there is a gem of a movie in there somewhere, but you'd have to edit it with Adults in mind, i.e. more dialogue. <p> There was obviously much more filmed than made it to the screen, here's hoping for an extended edition dvd with a higher rating and more adult editing.
Dec. 8, 2007, 10:47 a.m. CST
Breaking clams on my tummy!!!!!
Dec. 8, 2007, 11:01 a.m. CST
by Blood T Cat
anything that annoys christians and catholics is worth supporting.
Dec. 8, 2007, 11:15 a.m. CST
expect a boycott by the Polar Bear League when it finally gets released in Alaska.
Dec. 8, 2007, 11:24 a.m. CST
You pretty much summed up how I felt about the movie.
Dec. 8, 2007, 11:34 a.m. CST
Congratulations New Line. You can't imagine how happy I am that you "from the studio that brought you Lord of the Rings" campaign blew up in your face.
Dec. 8, 2007, 11:50 a.m. CST
Seeing as how his are basically the only modern fantasy works not beholden to Tolkien.
Dec. 8, 2007, 11:56 a.m. CST
is that they completely forget any kind of character arc. The same happened with the Pirate sequels. In the first one we saw Will and Elizabeth go from cloistered small towners to high sea adventurers. In the second two they're the same people from beginning to end. When you have multiple films to tell a story for some reason people forget that the characters have to change.
Dec. 8, 2007, 11:56 a.m. CST
by lex romero
Yeah they really dropped the ball on this one. Leaving out the last chapter of the book? Removing so much of the religious element that unless you've read the book the Dust concept makes no sense whatsoever? Making the characters paper thin? The worst is that if this doesn't make much money for being a shitty adaptation, the catholic groups will declare it a victory over the evil athiests and Pullman.
Dec. 8, 2007, 11:59 a.m. CST
Everything I've seen about this movie has shouted "mediocre". I'll probably check it out on netflix, if at all.
Dec. 8, 2007, 12:06 p.m. CST
really?<p> JK Rowling's stuff is not particularly beholden to Tolkien.<p> Neither is Ursula K Le Guin's.<p> Or Stephen Donaldson's.<p> Or George RR Martin's.<p> Or Michael Moorcock's.<p> Hmm, that's five noted fantasy authors who aren't beholden to Tolkien. need more?<p> The third book of the HDM trilogy notwithstanding, I think Pullman is a good author. But please don't buy into his bullshit of thinking that he's fantasy lits great white hope.
Dec. 8, 2007, 12:16 p.m. CST
by WYLD STALLYNS RULES
When's the last time you read her hilarious attempt at "high fantasy language?" Where do you think that comes from?
Dec. 8, 2007, 12:25 p.m. CST
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/jumper/ More information on the story. Looks even better.
Dec. 8, 2007, 12:34 p.m. CST
Peter F. Hamilton's Reality Dysfunction. <p> I'd watch that.
Dec. 8, 2007, 12:43 p.m. CST
Every single author you just mentioned in that list IS beholden to Tolkien, except for Moorcock. He's beholden to Pullman!
Dec. 8, 2007, 12:52 p.m. CST
by D o o d
Please read Philip Pulman's His Dark Materials trilogy as it is an amazing piece of fantasy literature. I saw the film a couple of days ago and I would go as far as saying that it's a Huge Piece of Shit. The books are amazing, Dark and very intelligently written. Infact I would have to say that I was very surprised how dark the books are. Give this film a W I D E birth and read the books.
Dec. 8, 2007, 1:31 p.m. CST
by Trader Groucho 2
Including most of what we call science fiction. <p> Denying Tolkien's place is like trying to deny Shakespeare's place. <p> And BTW, secure writers are completely cool with their predecessors, unafraid to acknowledge and laud their greatness and their influence.
Dec. 8, 2007, 1:46 p.m. CST
by Trader Groucho 2
at least at the box office. It took an estimated under $9m Friday, which puts it on track to make around $26m for the wkend per boxofficeprophets. If accurate, and unless the movie finds some serious legs here or does some insanely outrageous numbers overseas, New Line's taking a bath on this one. <p> In the wake of Rings and Potter and to a lesser extent Narnia, this has the feel of a me-too project.
Dec. 8, 2007, 2:04 p.m. CST
I'd say you are about half right. Pullman's books *start off* with some interesting ideas, but things fall apart rather quickly. After reading them, I sorta wished some editor had read them first and the told Pullman to go back, start over, and try again. The good elements of the books are mired in mikstakes--foreshadowing that goes nowhere, pat explanations, and forgotten loose ends. It's as if Pullman got increasingly lazy/rushed with the second and third books, and they end up sloppy. Craft them a little better, and they might be great works. <P> As is, they are far too much gnostic illustrations, hampered by a narratively irrelevant war on (a false?) god.
Dec. 8, 2007, 2:05 p.m. CST
yes, I mispelled "mistakes" above.
Dec. 8, 2007, 2:12 p.m. CST
by Barry Egan
Reviews for this are all over the place.
Dec. 8, 2007, 2:21 p.m. CST
The daemon effects were excellent and the armoured bears were pretty badass, as was the bear fight with that jaw punching and tongueeating finale. However, the movie as a whole was so plodding and underwhelming that I was left wondering if it was necessary to have another character introduced to the scene that would have little or no bearing in the proceedings. Did Christopher Lee really need to be there? The same with Derek Jacobi? Their presence may have in the minds of some people given the movie some dramatic weight but knowing their faces was distracting for me. I tried to like it. I really did but I was left disappointed.
Dec. 8, 2007, 2:23 p.m. CST
Will certainly break even after DVD and Cable, but this isn't going to do Fellowship of the Rings level business. Sorry, New Line! Too bad you can't work it out with Jackson and get The Hobbit going, because you're sure trying to cash in on LOTR in your Golden Compass marketing.
Dec. 8, 2007, 2:25 p.m. CST
by kenichi tanaka
You fools are crazy. I just returned from having seen this movie. While skeptical on how good it would be, I was pleasantly surprised at how good the film was. While it may not be Oscar material, it was thoroughly enjoyable. The thing I've come to expect is that where a book is turned into a movie to watch the movie first. I have to admit that there were some plot holes in the film adaption but I expect that this movie could go on to become the next Harry Potter.
Dec. 8, 2007, 2:49 p.m. CST
If you want a book *screaming* to be made into a movie, and totally unique, with the *best* characters in fantasy and scifi, then pick up a copy of Julian May's 'The Many-Colored Land' (1981). In the 80s, it was considered the creme de la creme for scifi-fantasy artists.
Dec. 8, 2007, 3:11 p.m. CST
by D o o d
your analysis of the books suggest to me that you have a far higher IQ than me as I didn't see all what you mentioned. I love the fact that Pulman obviously hates Religion, which was completely watered down in the movie and there are certain key moments that were changed or in one case at least, completely removed. I hear what you're saying but I can't possibly comment as I loved the books. Skywalkerfamily: You're quite right, King Kong was a mess. I saw far too many scenes where I could see the blue screen not properly removed. Film was shit in general I think, it didn't have that creepy darkness about it that the original had.
Dec. 8, 2007, 3:36 p.m. CST
That Inkheart movie looks INCREDIBLE! I'm definitely going to do some research on that series. I pretty much agree with whoever said there was a great movie hidden inside Golden Compass that got chopped and mangled by the studio. For fantasy that I really want to see made into a movie, I'd have to go with Diana Wynne Jones' "Dark Lord of Derkholm". It's an utterly hilarious send-up of the post-Tolkien fantasy genre. The basic gist of it is that a corporate mogul from our world finds a way into a parallel fantasy world, and he decides to exploit it. He basically takes the place over, ruins its economy, and forces all of the inhabitants to play parts in these epic scripted quests that his customers pay to go on. Like, people draw lots to see who has to be the evil dark lord who gets defeated this tourist season. As a fan of epic fantasy, I have to say it's one of the funniest things I've ever read, and would make a great movie.
Dec. 8, 2007, 3:41 p.m. CST
Said it in the other talkback and I'll say it here, what in God's name was this flick about? Seriously, "Crikey, lets go over here and talk to this polar bear that sounds like Gandalf!!" "That's a demon, it is! No it isn't, it is!" "Someone stole my rat, they did!" And anyone notice at the end of the fight the two kids were left behind while everyone just WANDERED OFF STAGE LEFT?!! Seriously, what the fuck was that amateur hour crap? Blahhhhh. Gawdawful! Maybe one of the worst of the year.
Dec. 8, 2007, 3:46 p.m. CST
by Trader Groucho 2
The budget is estimated at $150-180m, not counting P & A. The rule-of-thumb break-even for NL on this one is, conservatively, $150m domestic and around $180m foreign. Few movies that open at $26m these days go on to that kind of domestic gross. <p> IOW this one doesn't have Harry Potter pointing his wand at the balance sheet and yelling, "Grandios Numeros".
Dec. 8, 2007, 3:58 p.m. CST
by Trader Groucho 2
skywalker - jack black? miscast. but don't be hatin' on the adrian brody or the naomi watts. <p> bacci - steampunk! ty for the vocab add.... <p> tallboy - good points. and i had problems with the conversations and interactions between the humans and their daemons. i'm sure nicole kidman has developed a tough skin, what with tom cruise and her current rehab husband and all, but if she slaps her daemon, shouldn't she feel it too??? The kids' daemons seemed too much like separate entities, from the way they had to talk to tell each other stuff but still felt it if one was in pain. Maybe this all makes sense in the books, but I wasn't reading the books. I was sitting in a movie theater.
Dec. 8, 2007, 4:14 p.m. CST
If it were a good movie.
Dec. 8, 2007, 4:23 p.m. CST
All post-Tolkien fantasy is also derivative of Lewis, since Lewis was writing his fantasy works concurrently with Tolkien as I'm sure you know. Or more correctly, Tolkien and Lewis are both derivative of Wagner's Ring Cycle and Robert Howard's early 20th century fantasy.
Dec. 8, 2007, 4:25 p.m. CST
by Nairb The Movie
I am a huge fan of the books. I believe that The Subtle Knife is one of the best Fantasy novels I've ever read. Most of the hate seems to becoming from the Tolkien comparisons, which there shouldn't be any of. But what's more fun then complaining. Wait a good 25 years and then someone will have the no how to create the trilogy awesomely. But read the books. They're amazing.
Dec. 8, 2007, 4:31 p.m. CST
... if somebody can explain the NBA commercials tie-in with something other than "complete desperation at the movie tanking, big-time." Just kidding, I won't see it even then, out of protest for whatever face-tightening messed up Nicole Kidman's eyebrows for eternity.
Dec. 8, 2007, 4:52 p.m. CST
by Trader Groucho 2
This is becoming the Elvis v Beatles argument about rock & roll. we can settle this quickly. all fantasy goes back to our prehistoric ancestors' cave paintings, and the oral traditions of the various cultures of the world dating back in some cases over 5,000 years. More recently, Lewis reached back thousands of years into the Bible; Tolkien the mythology of cold northern Europe. <p> However, I maintain Tolkien was more influential on the writers (and filmmakers) who followed, just as the Beatles were far more influential on the music that followed than were the artists who inspired the Beatles.
Dec. 8, 2007, 4:57 p.m. CST
by Larry of Arabia
Dec. 8, 2007, 5:29 p.m. CST
by The Real MiraJeff
email@example.com shoot me an email let's set something up a fight to the death or something, cheers mate!
Dec. 8, 2007, 5:45 p.m. CST
Whoever decided to lop off the end of this movie should be fired immediately.
Dec. 8, 2007, 5:47 p.m. CST
wow, there's a lot people smoking crack on this talkback.<p> yes, Howard is - after Tolkien - the major forerunner of all modern fantasy. but Tolkien? i'm willing to bet £100 that Tolkien never even heard of Howard's stuff when he was writing the Middle Earth canon, let alone read any of it. Yes, the Ring Cycle and Scandanavian mythos generally was a huge influence on Tolkien but even there, beholden? nah.<p> While I think it's true that all modern fantasy is written in the shadow of either Tolkien or Howard (in Pullman's case, it's Tolkien), the authors i listed are successful enough to have done their own thing rather than writing purely derivative versions of LOTR (yes, I'm looking at you, David Eddings).<p> btw, Ursula le Guin's style is nothing like Tolkiens, nor is Moorcock beholden to Pullman (esp when Moorcock has been writing for about 30 years before Pullman came on the scene). Moorcock is an excellent example of fantasy in the tradition of Howard rather than Tolkien: e.g. there are no elves or dwarves in Melnibone nor is Moorcock particularly interested in worldbuilding.
Dec. 8, 2007, 6:02 p.m. CST
by Trader Groucho 2
The Beatles would be the first to tell you how important Elvis was to them. Not my point. <p> The Beatles still overshadow the rock/pop and other genres & subgenres which have come AFTER, just as Tolkien casts a giant shadow over the fantasy (and I would argue a lot of science fiction too) that has come after him.
Dec. 8, 2007, 6:02 p.m. CST
by Mace Tofu
from the makers of THE GOLDEN COMPASS. AHHHH! What a nightmare I just had. Damn you NEW LINE LOL
Dec. 8, 2007, 6:05 p.m. CST
by Trader Groucho 2
Don't just take my word for it: <p> http://tinyurl.com/263gbf <p> BTW I ain't hatin'. I wanted to see this movie work better.
Dec. 8, 2007, 6:38 p.m. CST
The world needs more fantasy films.
Dec. 8, 2007, 6:56 p.m. CST
300. Just have to offer the counter opinion.
Dec. 8, 2007, 7:11 p.m. CST
You don't want to be going and getting TomBodet to open a can or two of whup-ass on you. Remember what happened when you tried to fight the worst director in the world? <p> Well, the humiliation of suffering defeat at the fists of a talkbacker will be a hell of a lot worse than that. Or at the paws of his aunt's huskies, for that matter.
Dec. 8, 2007, 7:41 p.m. CST
Don't hold your breath for any sequels. In fact, hold your breath for New Line being shut down and reabsorbed into Time Warner.
Dec. 8, 2007, 7:41 p.m. CST
Great to see that great Hollywood playwright 'Moriarty' prediction in the AICN chatroom that THE GOLDEN COMPASS would be a massive flop has come correct! The same great 'Moriarty' who brags in the AICN chatroom that working for AICN has hindered his chances of having some of his 'projects' been signed up!!!! Don't. Make. Me. Fuckin. Laugh you chancer. You are just some wannabe stalker who gets to meet his heroes through this site. Mori, you know it, and I know it, no Roger Avary, David Koepp or William Monaghan ( MK3 springs to mind L.O.L.) spends there half of their life writng for a site that is 20% relevant that it was the turn of the century. ps. The AICN hindered me getting me a decent Hollywood job is total, I say total crap. Even that dirty bastard who directed JEEPERS CREEPERS even gotta job!!!!! Mori, you're a ok movie review writer if it was for a stiff-upper-lip newspaper here in England. (You're INTO WILD review made me laugh, fuck sake, I was reading and was waiting foe you to ask "Can I shine your shoes, Sean". What a fuckin creep. Might I mention your Buzz Aldrin docu piece... zzzzzzz. Mori, I don't hate you, you just take yourself far, yes far far too too seroiusly me old China.
Dec. 8, 2007, 7:45 p.m. CST
L. Frank Baum. Think about it, Lord of the Rings is built on the same basic lines as The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Good witches and bad wizards with competing centers of power, a quest led by a rural innocent with all sorts of odd companions, talking trees, and so on...
Dec. 8, 2007, 7:46 p.m. CST
Only because it's been filtered through Star Wars first.
Dec. 8, 2007, 7:52 p.m. CST
Did I forget the 'conflict of interest' that goes on at AICN That is one of the main reasons why AICN is taking so serioulsy anymore ie: AICN article: Mori pictured at SUPERBAD premiere.... weeks before and after many favourable reviews on AICN. WHAT A CHANCER AND WHAT A FUCKIN CORRUPT SITE. >>>..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Harry and his wife...oh, fuck it, can't be fuckin bothered. LOL.
Dec. 8, 2007, 8:18 p.m. CST
... kinda a bit late but I do respect you. Not so much those cunts who work for you and now and again bitch about you. Ask Mori about is bitching about Massawyn (in the chatroom) or how you fuckin spell it.
Dec. 8, 2007, 8:31 p.m. CST
high fantasy like LOTR, narnia, compass isn't really as fascinating as low fantasy, aka sword and sorcery namely howard's worlds of conan, kull, solmon kane.
Dec. 8, 2007, 8:51 p.m. CST
Narnia isn't high fantasy. Narnia is Christian allegory with goofy pagan characters thrown in. <P> Also, His Dark Materials isn't high fantasy as much as a demonstration of how to combine gnosticism and a dilletante's knowledge of quantum theory in order to rant against spirituality. Story takes backseat.
Dec. 8, 2007, 9:03 p.m. CST
by Trader Groucho 2
I'd have thought that "wanker" was the insult Vamp was looking for. Being compared to Clive Owen isn't so bad. <p> Oh, and whoever frakked the marketing for Shoot 'Em Up, you suck. That was a great fun movie.
Dec. 8, 2007, 9:17 p.m. CST
by Trader Groucho 2
When are we going to see your horror/slasher pic?
Dec. 8, 2007, 9:55 p.m. CST
by Trader Groucho 2
Come on Tom. Throw a MILF a bone.... :)
Dec. 8, 2007, 10:01 p.m. CST
by Trader Groucho 2
You don't have to leave the light on.
Dec. 8, 2007, 10:15 p.m. CST
because they didnt include the ending. That could have been the only thing to save it from being a watered-down sell-out commercial piece of shit. My words may sound harsh but if you read the books, they're neither watered-down nor commercial. That is all.
Dec. 8, 2007, 10:19 p.m. CST
Narnia is not any more religiously allegorical than The Matrix, John Connor in Terminator (JC?), or Superman. Other than that I agree it's high fantasy. Albeit catered for all ages, but high fantasy tempered with occasional darker themes.
Dec. 8, 2007, 10:24 p.m. CST
Vamp, i totally agree. moriarty is a total dick. his reviews used to be alright, but now his head is so big that every time i read one of his bombastic reviews i want to throw up and then punch him. About his dark materials, which i'm 2/3 through and going at full steam, it's not even a question of saving the fantasy genre. those books way transcend fantasy or sci fi or even novels. pullman is simply a genius-shaman and reading his books tickles my imagination while at the same time spiritually mentoring me like a sensei. it's a shame the movie will put people off of reading the books.
Dec. 8, 2007, 10:32 p.m. CST
BTW, just finished the 2nd book, and anyone who says that book 2 is a disappointment from the first one, well, you must not come from the same planet i live on. the first book was simply foreplay to the true unleashing of imaginative ideas in book 2, and the way it's set up, i'm pretty sure book 3 is going to rock as well. what the fuck is up with you people? does no one on this site read books? why are there only closet fundamentalists making comments on the books on here??
Dec. 8, 2007, 10:32 p.m. CST
I actually agree with everything else Capone said...but has it really been that long since "The Hours"?
Dec. 8, 2007, 10:33 p.m. CST
Aaand the rest of that subject line was..."t think things have reached true excitement level for her work in many years."
Dec. 8, 2007, 10:51 p.m. CST
I disagree. There is a difference between allegory and symbolism. In something like the Matrix, Keanu has christlike elements. However, the story has its own internal logic--things don't happen simply because Keanu is christlike. The christ-story elements are there to add depth and emotional impact (and probably because the Wachowski brothers thought it made them look smart). In Narnia, however, stuff happens because analogous stuff happened in the bible. There's no reason for Aslan to need to die for Edmund, nor does it make sense for him to come back to life and save the day, except because that's what Jesus did. <P> Just to clarify, though, Narnia is better than the Matrix. I'm just suggesting that Narnia isn't "high fantasy" because the underlying story is more derivative than fantastic.
Dec. 8, 2007, 11:35 p.m. CST
Good:<p> Kidman (looked good, as always)<p>Bears!<p>Bear Fight!<p>SAM EFFIN ELLIOT<p>some sfx were great<p>Eva Green <p><p>Bad:<p>Kidman's performance was cold and dull, mostly just gliding and posing in designer clothes<p>Elliot was not used enough<p>Eva Green and her character were criminally underutilized<p>characters--mostly you just don't give a crap about them<p>story: very slow moving, characters seemed mostly cardboard cutouts to move the storyline (we need someone to explain this, or show up to do that, doesnt hardly matter who they are or if the audience knows them)<p>I would say it is worth a big screen viewing if you are into the effects and imagery, but story/character quality makes this a rental dvd item, not a must see or must own sorta thing.<p>Too bad. I also have NO interest in the books, now, based on this.
Dec. 8, 2007, 11:38 p.m. CST
the "effect" and visualization of the "ask the compass" thing was poor at best, and overused. Once would have been enough. We get it. Move on.<p>It was a lot like how in Bionic Woman they have her pose, look up and to the right, and then cut to a zooming in shot to show us YES She is using THIS bionic ear for the Super Hearing.<p>please stop that kinda crap....
Dec. 8, 2007, 11:47 p.m. CST
Shouldn't have done it at all. Should have just had her read it and she understood it and we've got no idea how.<br><br>My review: movie gets good when Sam Elliot shows up, is "meh" before. The bad guys really are cardboard cut outs, for the most part, which is kinda sad, but . . . Took my daughter and 3 of her friends, most of whom enjoyed it. I've certainly see worse films.
Dec. 8, 2007, 11:49 p.m. CST
With all the good names and alterna-names for stuff in the series, the energy particles the bind all universes together is called "dust"? Man, I never thought I'd be pining for midichlorians . . .
Dec. 8, 2007, 11:50 p.m. CST
1/3 capacity at best. Lord of The Rings of the Box Office this ain't gonna be, sorry.
Dec. 8, 2007, 11:52 p.m. CST
If you write sonnets, you're beholden to Shakespeare. To lesser or greater degrees, to be sure, but beholden you are.
Dec. 9, 2007, 12:09 a.m. CST
by Trader Groucho 2
Dec. 9, 2007, 12:28 a.m. CST
Quarlkings? Energism? Dimensionium? Granulariums? Jodhpurs? Samoans? Macoronium? Tesla-energy?
Dec. 9, 2007, 12:33 a.m. CST
I mean, come on. Dust?
Dec. 9, 2007, 12:41 a.m. CST
If you needed a movie to get you interested in the books, you're a lost cause as a reader. Considering how acclaimed the trilogy is in literature circles, you should have already come across it.
Dec. 9, 2007, 12:43 a.m. CST
What saddens me is that when reading these books, just like when watching an episode of Heroes, I get the sense of great potential simmering and sometimes boiling under a sugar-coated surface. The Golden Compass was a BIG opportunity to accomplish more than excellent storytelling, but actually OPEN PEOPLE'S MINDS, and the filmmakers have completely missed the mark.
Dec. 9, 2007, 12:44 a.m. CST
Actually the movie didn't cheat how the character used the compass. She's able to use it right off the bat in the book too. She can do this because the compass is best read by those who still have their childhood innocence. That's why adults can't read them without books to help them decipher the meaning of the symbols. Overall, I thought the movie was entertaining. It was definitely no Lord of the Rings and still marches a few steps behind Harry Potter's cadence (at least Harry Potter and LOTR have a memorable score), but it was good.
Dec. 9, 2007, 12:51 a.m. CST
there are a LOT of books out there that I am sure neither of us has "come across". Sometimes the way you "come across" one is via a film. I became very interested in No Country for Old Men, though I had never heard of it. Most of the books I like never have had the "movie treatment". I even like books that have never been "acclaimed in literature circles."<p>don't be such a snob
Dec. 9, 2007, 12:54 a.m. CST
the music--frequently the score seemed to be from another movie, and the end-title song was mind-bogglingly bad.
Dec. 9, 2007, 12:57 a.m. CST
and there were some, for sure, see my above post. Worth a viewing, even if you wait for dvd. Just not as good as one would hope. I went in expecting to be surprised by this great story being told, with the effects able to support it--instead I got a so-so story with good effects.
Dec. 9, 2007, 12:59 a.m. CST
YES!!! or maybe armored bears sipping cokes! --with penquins! hope they do that on the dvd <p> Thanks for the laugh!
Dec. 9, 2007, 12:59 a.m. CST
by slappy jones
to die for and dead calm are great. ....but she really is box office poison now it seems. she just can't get a hit.......oh and BMX Bandits.
Dec. 9, 2007, 1:01 a.m. CST
by slappy jones
i imagine new line are fucking begging him back now.
Dec. 9, 2007, 1:03 a.m. CST
Robert E Howard wrote all of his stuff and then died before the Hobbit was even released. If you're talking high fantasy then sure but not the whole fantasy genre.
Dec. 9, 2007, 1:32 a.m. CST
Not that Tolkien was beholden to much of what had come before. He did not invent the idea of Elves or Dwarves, but the Hobbit, and especially LOTR, has influenced all that has come since, directly or indirectly or even by the attempt to "not be beholden too".
Dec. 9, 2007, 1:59 a.m. CST
You don't just keep plucking lesser-known film-makers out of obscurity to make good fantasy films. Once you find one who's proven himself, YOU DO ALL YOU CAN TO HIM/HER HAPPY and let them take the reigns, from then on. It's not rocket science. I wonder what this would have been like in the hands of Peter Jackson? http://dcmoviegirl.blogspot.com
Dec. 9, 2007, 3:39 a.m. CST
he inspired all. <p> Fritz Leiber was the most influential of the sword and sorcery writers -- he coined the term, and he set the tone and template for most of the fantasy books to follow. <p> Moorcock was inspired mostly by his friend Mervyn Peake (though Elric is a product of Howard -- Elric is the mirror opposite of Conan). Moorcock has had a greater impact on speculative fiction and fantasy than Tolkien ever will. <p> Tolkien only ever wrote his brand of linguistics obsessed, Kalevala- and Nibelungenlied-esque epic fantasy -- he didn't create much else, and he is stingy with magic in his world (where exactly is the "fantasy"). Absolutely he has his imitators (or outright plagiarists), but he is hardly ground zero for epic fantasy (E.R. Eddison's "The Worm Ouroboros" predates LOTR), or sword & sorcery. He was embarrassed when he won International Fantasy Award, and never considered himself associated with the genre.
Dec. 9, 2007, 4:11 a.m. CST
Was good in Dead Calm , To Die For , The Others , The Hours and she has a spectacular ass.
Dec. 9, 2007, 4:33 a.m. CST
that is all
Dec. 9, 2007, 6:11 a.m. CST
by The Real MiraJeff
dude, just don't understand why you have to go into other writer's talkbacks and start hatin', completely unprovoked. i mean, don't you have better things to do with your time. what was it about this review that made you think of me? because i think something got lost in translation. you're a talkback bully. allow me to bow before the great tom bodet. i forgot who i was dealing with. excuse me, sir. and for the record, the golden compass was one of the Top 10 worst films I saw all year. And that's a list that doesn't even include Postal.
Dec. 9, 2007, 6:28 a.m. CST
by D o o d
There is nothing wrong with the actors or even the choice of actors. There is notning mind blowing about the effects but they do the job. It's the Director, he just made a complete mess of it. This film jumps all over the place. No single individual in the movie is likeable or loathed as the characters have no time. Maybe this film wasn't long enough or the Director is rubbish. I did like About a Boy but I hated American Pie. So I'm not hating on the Director, he's just done a bad job. You need a Director who's got the balls to deal with dark material such as this (no punn intended)
Dec. 9, 2007, 6:31 a.m. CST
Wonder if there will be sequels?
Dec. 9, 2007, 7:07 a.m. CST
Dec. 9, 2007, 7:37 a.m. CST
I saw GC Friday night, and while I didn't think it was the absolute greatest, I liked it enough that I'm curious as to what happens with the rest of the story. The movie pretty much ended with a big "To Be Continued" so I'm hoping that the other 2 get made, at least to finish this out. My fear is that due to the movie bombing, there will not be a part 2 or 3 to this, and so this movie will be left dangling, just like good old Animated LOTR. I know I can grab any of the books at any time, and I have already started on pt.1, but I would at least like to see this film come to an end, or at least a good stopping point. The ending to this was lame, and will only make the movie even worse if that's all there is.
Dec. 9, 2007, 9:24 a.m. CST
Better than Golden Compass, hate to say.
Dec. 9, 2007, 9:33 a.m. CST
In the movie as it stands, it's clear the church hates knowledge, independent thought, scientific discovery, the truth, children, freedom, and everything good, preferring instead being evil and murdering ideological opponents, and kidnapping children to destroy their souls! I suppose there's a lot more of it in the book, but . . . if that's toned down, I wonder how tedious it might have been had it not been. "Now, here is a powerpoint presentation on how religion is bad. Well, first, it's bad. Second, it doesn't like children. 3rd, it's mean. Fourth, it's really bad."
Dec. 9, 2007, 9:35 a.m. CST
I started coming to this site because it covered the geeky movies, the sci-fi stuff, the action, superhero movies and the just plain cool. Now there are 20 reviews for 'The Golden Compass', which although fantasy in nature, look to be boring as hell. There are pics and trailers for 'Sex and The City' posted on a regular basis. But there is not a single damned talkback, not a single trailer, not a single photo of the new Aliens vs Predator. Not a single one. Nothing. Yes I get that the franchise kinda died a bit with the last one, but even "AvP 37: Nursing Home Hijinks" deserves a freaking mention before Sex and the City on a site that is supposed to be devoted to 'cool' movies.
Dec. 9, 2007, 10:54 a.m. CST
by Blood T Cat
I'm no revolutionary but I know who is. Dr. Momus A Morgus. He once said, "In the land of idiots, he who holds the book of knowledge is king." I'm not saying actually watch the movie, it looks pretty boring and long. But the people who are angered by what they think the movie's purpose is are really annoying, self-righteous dicks that demand you be offended by whatever offends them and will not be happy till they control every aspect of your life. So, if financially supporting a movie that causes them a tiny bit off worry works, then do it.
Dec. 9, 2007, 12:50 p.m. CST
When someone is writing - in the talkback or anywhere else - and they throw up an open parenthesis, and then you read ultra fast waiting for the closed parenthesis to come, line after line after line. I was just thinking Harry should open all his reviews with an open parenthesis.
Dec. 9, 2007, 12:56 p.m. CST
I disagree with most of what you said, but I do agree with your assessment that the characters are not very likable. I read Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy immediately after finishing the Potter series, and I had the very same reaction; I did not particularly like or relate to any of the characters. I didn't really start loving the books until they started moving into other universes. Pullman did everything you can imagine after book 2: stories from the perspective of other people (the other main character of book 2, the witches, Sam Elliot's character, both of Lyra's parents), explanation of the dust, alternate non-alethiometer ways of communicating with it, explanation of how the universe began, explanation of angels, what happens after death, an epic battle that covers all universes, the list goes on and on. It was extremely imaginitive.
Dec. 9, 2007, 2:11 p.m. CST
by Super Rabbi
Dec. 9, 2007, 2:53 p.m. CST
COCA COLA BEARS: THE MOVIE
Dec. 9, 2007, 2:54 p.m. CST
DON'T MESS WITH CATHOLICS
Dec. 9, 2007, 2:55 p.m. CST
BOB SHAYE = DOUCHE
Dec. 9, 2007, 2:57 p.m. CST
Sex and the City...really? Is that what we really give a moment's notice thinking about? But you know, Harry posted an excited review of Stepmom (1998) on its opening day back in the beginning, which was equally-bewildering. So this site has always had a strange imbalance in that way...
Dec. 9, 2007, 3 p.m. CST
You make some good points. I never thought about the symbolism versus outright allegory. So that's a bit clearer to me, but it'll never be so distracting to me that the Narnia film doesn't give me constant chills and make me weep with joy.
Dec. 9, 2007, 3:01 p.m. CST
This site just isn't that site anymore. It's a still retained the talk backs and amateur hour reviews and stories, but its pretty much just a reguarly updated entertainment blog. Like 99 per cent of the others out there. Generic interviews with generic movie stars, reviews of all the latest releases, and still a few test screening write ups, lots of product pimping and a collection of news garnered from other sites. Still as lame as its gotten, I like bitching and moaning and arguring with others on their well trafficked talkbacks.
Dec. 9, 2007, 3:29 p.m. CST
seriously, go see it in IMAX 3D or be disappointed!! Golden Compass looks horrible
Dec. 9, 2007, 3:36 p.m. CST
with pacing and plot holes. Why does Sam Elliot suddenly befriend Lyra and tell her about Jorek the bear and then why is Jorek suddely indebted to her when she tells him about his armor? Why do the guardians attack the Gyptian camp and kidnap Lyra to give to the bear king? Why does Lyra just waltz right into the Experimental school alone? Why does everyone show up out of NOWHERE at the end and then vanish out of thin air. THEYRE IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE! LOTR might have been slow in some places but it did the right thing by showin huge armies walking...alot. <p> I did get reminded of Neverending Story though when Lyra rides Jorek. Hopefully, to a few kids thatll be as memorable as that one kid riding Falcor.
Dec. 9, 2007, 3:53 p.m. CST
...if your movie hasn't got an airship in it, we just don't want to know. When is someone going to do Philip Reeve's Mortal Engines?
Dec. 9, 2007, 4:48 p.m. CST
This one was very good, and hopefully they'll get even better. I enjoyed it a lot.
Dec. 9, 2007, 5:27 p.m. CST
maybe the disappointing box office of GC will result in Bob Shaye getting pushed aside and making way for The Hobbit with Peter...Mr. Jackson if youre nasty.
Dec. 9, 2007, 5:35 p.m. CST
the weekend B.O. for GC. Its had great legs and is really an experience in 3D.
Dec. 9, 2007, 5:37 p.m. CST
My fiancee and I just saw it last night. I was extraordinarily impressed. She had read the books before, and so she wanted to see it. For my part, I went into the film with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of the property. I was not adverse to the idea of watching it, but I was wholly nonplussed by <i>The Chronicles of Narnia</i>, and the marketing campaign very clearly attempted to sell the film as a retread of that enormous hit (and very mediocre film). I was shocked to discover one of the most impressive fantasy films I've ever seen. It was wholly engrossing, to the point that I grew distraught at a lengthy conversation being held between two characters at the film's conclusion, hoping that this wasn't the end. No, camera, don't pan up and back! That's an ending shot! Stop it! I will simply say that this is the most fascinating, well-drawn fantasy world since Middle-Earth and Hogwart's, a truly original expanse of imagination that I whole-heartedly recommend. One thing I want to stress is that despite its misguided marketing campaign, this is not a copy of the decidedly unspectacular and childish <i>Chronicles of Narnia</i>. This is much darker, more adult, and more fascinating, not to mention just plain <i>better</i>. Don't be put off by the ads. It all comes together to make a wholly satisfying film experience, and I sincerely hope a successful one, as the production of the subsequent films hinges on this one's success.
Dec. 9, 2007, 5:43 p.m. CST
This site needed someone to burst the praise-bubble.
Dec. 9, 2007, 6:07 p.m. CST
You guys really just sit in a room together when youre not gophering and post on entertainment sites? That's what you went to film school for?
Dec. 9, 2007, 7:43 p.m. CST
"Good plant, nice plant. Have your own grow light... Perhaps some classical music..."
Dec. 9, 2007, 7:47 p.m. CST
No I didn't. The movie was good. I had a free ticket from a DVD guy that somebody gave me. So all I had to buy was the drink and popcorn supporting the theaters. All they really had to do in this movie is change the word "demon" with "familiar" and I think all would have been right in the world. Maybe change the title for the bible thumpers. The polar bear stuff in the movie was great. This polar bear would kick the shit out of the coke polar bear hands down! I would have told you before the movie that talking animals are dumb in a movie but it really worked for me in the movie and it did not seem so kiddie orientated. I will go see the next one if it happens. I hate Nicole Kidman but since she is playing a bitch anyway I thought she was ok.
Dec. 9, 2007, 8:23 p.m. CST
And I haven't really thought about it. Forgettable. Sorry, New Line.
Dec. 9, 2007, 9:14 p.m. CST
That's how far your career in the industry is, too. It'll always be days of "coffee for Mrs Executive, and change the water in the cooler". Oh, and of making such posts as the one you made.
Dec. 9, 2007, 9:24 p.m. CST
hey make no mistake, I love capone's and mirajeff's writing, but they are way, way off on Golden Compass. One of the TEN WORST? of 2007? That's just ludicrous. It's not one of the ten best either, but its visually imaginative, is never boring and has a great heroine. And Sam Eliot!
Dec. 9, 2007, 9:54 p.m. CST
nor 10 best. Not memorable, not memorably good nor memorably bad. One of those okay films that is good in some places (the bear fight is worth it) and dull in others.
Dec. 9, 2007, 10:16 p.m. CST
by --- Emperor ---
Dec. 9, 2007, 11:45 p.m. CST
China Mieville, Neil Gaiman, Susanna Clarke, JK Rowling, Naomi Novik. Then there's mid-listers like M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, and Tim Pratt. I've got nothing against Pullman but saying he's the only fantasy writer out there who isn't beholden to Tolkien is complete bullshit.
Dec. 9, 2007, 11:55 p.m. CST
It would be to get paid to post on AICN, like Farsky does, but then I realized that I usually post while I'm AT work, so It's not that strange after all. Still...
Dec. 10, 2007, 12:32 a.m. CST
by Frank Black
...and gave intelligent reasons why it didn't work for you without delving into the hysteria. Great piece. I found the film to be outstanding and surreal and was floored by the little girl's performance. I also found it to be too frightening for small children but they seemed to love it anyway (the kids behind me were terrified most of the film but told their mom it was "the bestest film they ever saw." It was over the top like the Sinbad movies were for me as a kid and still managed to be interesting enough to captivate me as an adult viewer. On top of that, I picked up the books tonight and am almost through the first one. The Golden Compass was a really imaginative film and I am enjoying the books now too.
Dec. 10, 2007, 12:39 a.m. CST
I'm scrolling down and all I see are posts by TomBodet. Do you have anything else to do with your days or are you really that sad?
Dec. 10, 2007, 12:55 a.m. CST
THE GOLDEN COMPASS tallied only $26 million at the boxoffice. Pretty lame (its budget was $180-$200 million which doesn't include advertising. It would have to recoup approx. $300 million to break even). It flopped badly enough to prompt a "shake-up" at the New Line company. Mr. Pullman shot off his big mouth and speculated that the "backlash" would be inconsequential. He was dreadfully wrong. The toy tie-ins have already taken a dive (soon to join HOWARD THE DUCK's plush toys). Pullman, expecting to reap financial rewards, better not quit his day job. His "yacht" fantasy has transformed into a second-hand rowboat.
Dec. 10, 2007, 1:27 a.m. CST
= Box Office Failure. I said it in the other talk backs about this movie. And I WAS RIGHT
Dec. 10, 2007, 1:28 a.m. CST
= Talentless, wash-ed hag.
Dec. 10, 2007, 2:41 a.m. CST
thegreatwhatzit - That is the funniest yet most apt headline we'll ever see, here or in newsprint. Kudos to you.
Dec. 10, 2007, 5:38 a.m. CST
Dec. 10, 2007, 5:40 a.m. CST
Tolkien is beholden to William S Burroughs and Phillip K. Dick by means of time travel.
Dec. 10, 2007, 6:18 a.m. CST
Sorry, but this real cool news. This site haven't been updated for hours. <p>indianajones.com
Dec. 10, 2007, 7:14 a.m. CST
what's up with Indy's hat?? is it just me, or is that thing way too big??
Dec. 10, 2007, 7:27 a.m. CST
by just pillow talk
but why post news about this when we'll have 38 more reviews of this stupid movie?
Dec. 10, 2007, 7:30 a.m. CST
by Abominable Snowcone
She liked it. All the 'religious' overtones flew past her. I got them. The 'good guys' are the atheists, whose spirits reside not within them, but alongside them in animal form. The 'bad guys' are symbolic of Catholic Christians--a Magistrarium 'authority' who suppresses individual knowledge and freedom and wishes to separate the 'good guys' from their outer 'daemons' via 'baptism' in a diabolic device. When people die in this world, they literally go 'poof' into dust, which I took to be Original Sin. Whatever. Frankly, I thought the film was just another fantasy a la Narnia, only a lot more disjointed and boring. If the Christians are upset about it, it's because they WANT to read too much into it and make a stink. I'm a lapsed Catholic, but even if I practiced regularly I wouldn't give a shit about what Pullman's ideology is, because I'm open to anything.
Dec. 10, 2007, 7:36 a.m. CST
by Abominable Snowcone
Are you people kidding? The Inkheart trailer looked like poop, if only because Brendan Frasier's in it. Plus, I'm sick of everything whose title has the word 'heart' in it. And do you GET it? The bad guy comes to life out of a book. Get it--INK heart? Bwah hah heh..it'll suck.
Dec. 10, 2007, 7:38 a.m. CST
by Abominable Snowcone
I wasn't aware of the film--or the book--until too weeks ago. Granted, I don't watch a whole lot of TV, but I don't think New Line pushed this very well, which would explain the weak box office. Sadly, I don't see it having legs because word of mouth will make it known that it's a MEHfest. I for one am not recommending it. Nicole Kidman wasn't even nude once--but she does slap a monkey. Seriously. That was kind of hot.
Dec. 10, 2007, 8 a.m. CST
Thanks wadi77 for doing AICN staff's job for them because they are too lazy to. Indy 4 poster released and not a mention on the site, ugh... indianajones.com
Dec. 10, 2007, 8:52 a.m. CST
My Priest told me so. that and it hasn't played in germany yet.
Dec. 10, 2007, 8:56 a.m. CST
by Kid Z
...but can't talk about that right now... my f**in' daemon just crapped on the Persian rug again!... That's handwoven silk you stupid mongrel! OUTSIDE! NOW!
Dec. 10, 2007, 9:21 a.m. CST
by Lord Nerd
GODDAMNIT!! If he existed ofcourse. What?
Dec. 10, 2007, 9:28 a.m. CST
...has just found the pleasures of peanut-butter in my crotch. We won't be leaving the house for a while. Seriously, I saw the A.S. of this flick and I saw a couple of warning signs to the flicks demise. They are as follows: 1. The major amount of exposisition on the front end. Not a killer (done well in LOTR) if done well. 2. I started falling asleep at about 25-minutes and I hadn't been drinking. 3. What was I writing about again?
Dec. 10, 2007, 9:30 a.m. CST
by Lord Nerd
He asked me to stop. I was like.."Stop what"? Then he was like..**click**
Dec. 10, 2007, 9:31 a.m. CST
by Frank Black
It made good money in Europe and word of mouth over the next few weeks will help it. Rather than gleefully celebrating somethings failure, why not support all works of art and ideas? Oh wait, because this is America and it can only be free if it is your kind of freedom. It isn't like the movie/books promote satanism but its either Passion of the Christ or nothing, huh? Anything that questions religion or suggests the Chruch could be a big scam is EVIL. Oh, maybe because if people stopped believing in Christ and explored other ideas then the Catholic Church would lost its power that they have worked so hard to push on simple-minded people everywhere? If Jesus came back today and he looked like he should, chances are no one would believe it was him (does Jesus have a special ID or would you make him turn water into wine to prove he was?) and given the fact that he is Middle Eastern and not white like so many idiots believe, I guess he would probably end up waterboarded down at Gunatanamo faster than we can say Amen. I love how vile and shrill religious people get defending their "faith" when they wouldn't have to defend it if they would STFU about it and keep it private as it should be.
Dec. 10, 2007, 9:35 a.m. CST
by Frank Black
the film was still number one! Number one doesn't mean failure and if it is number one next week it will certainly get a sequel. Maybe I'll see it every day this week to add to its gain and drive you haters crazy (many of you haters haven't even seen the films but that is how you people role isn't it?)
Dec. 10, 2007, 9:36 a.m. CST
by Lord Nerd
...are high this morning already, hit your space bars.
Dec. 10, 2007, 9:38 a.m. CST
by Frank Black
That made me laugh out loud! Daemon's love peanut butter.
Dec. 10, 2007, 9:40 a.m. CST
by Kid Z
...He'd be just another unwashed, babbling lunatic begging for money on a street corner. "Here J., go getcha self a hot meal... don't go spending it on fortified wine, okay? What? You can make your own wine? From water, huh? Ummm... whatever dude, take care now, ya hear?" (Geez... these homeless dudes are crazy motherf**ers...)
Dec. 10, 2007, 9:46 a.m. CST
by Frank Black
Jesus would have to pull some pretty amazing magic out of his sleeve to convince people but I suppose "they would just know." Since I don't believe in him I guess his magic wouldn't work on me and I would fight him with my talking polar bear, (oh wait there won't be any f*cking polar bears left because we're killin` `em with our pollution! Damn us all to hell!)
Dec. 10, 2007, 10:25 a.m. CST
Was it a "success" thanks to brisk business in Europe? Because the Compass is looking like Son of Eragon: Electric Boogaloo.<p> New Line will have to go into mighty deep debt to finance Compass part2, since they sold off the foreign distribution. Ouch. <p> But I say, in a shocking move, they actually will do the sequels! They'll cut the budget in half and bring in a shitty director and shitty efx house, because that's only kind they'll be able to afford. But they've already paid for the book rights, and will want to squeeze every penny they can from it.
Dec. 10, 2007, 10:28 a.m. CST
by Frank Black
Eragon really wasn't very good to begin with. Compass is a rich and imaginative story. You people can pray for the failure of these works all you want but they won't go away.
Dec. 10, 2007, 10:37 a.m. CST
..no really. As long as it has a naked Damodar in it. Or is that from another dud fantasy film with dragons, and dungeons, oh my.
Dec. 10, 2007, 11:07 a.m. CST
I see a lot of similarities in both the production values and the marketing. Having seen both flicks and being supremely underwhelmed (although Compass had a little more eye-candy) I hope I'm not hated by the likes of a Frank Black. My own religion aside, I find that advancing religious agendas through fantasy flicks to be a fruitless waste of time. Focus on the story and (more important) getting us to care about the characters and you'll have a successful franchise. LOTR & Potter (not totally lacking in a spirituality) are damn good yarns with fantastic character development. I confess, I didn't read Compass, but I took a swing at Narnia and didn't finish, because it was a boring peice o' lion dung. But Potter & LOTR are books I can read over & over again and my kids will probably be reading them too. And it may just be a matter of my opinion, but I think time will bear me out on this issue; look at the book sales for series years after their release and if they're nonexistant, I wouldn't put stock into movie adaptation.
Dec. 10, 2007, 11:13 a.m. CST
A New Line exec, "off the record," admitted the "zip" boxoffice receipts "have stopped any further speculation about COMPASS sequels" (the same guy suspects the DVD sales "will be less than spectacular"). When I AM LEGEND opens next weekend, COMPASS will be nothing more than a blip in Trivial Pursuit games. Apparebtly, New Line Cinema's Robert Shayne is "in trouble" as a result of COMPASS' failure. But, Jesus, didn't the company mint enough money from LORD OF THE RINGS? I thought that trilogy would render them solvent for years!
Dec. 10, 2007, 11:14 a.m. CST
You're the worst kind of reader. You see a movie to decide whether you want to read the book?!?! Jeez-o-fuck! How can you DO that? <p> If you do that as a habit, that means more than half of Stephen King's library will be considered utter crap in your eyes, and that you'd probably never give I Am Legend a shot, seeing as they've never done it right. It means that you'd avoid ever reading a lot of the classics (Frankenstein, for example) because no movie has ever captured the book. <p> Most despicably, it means that you'd probably believe that "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is a shitty book series. <p> You'd have to avoid ever reading "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" because we all know what a steaming pile THAT movie was. <p> Actually, you can't even begin to tally up all the movies that have SUCKED in comparison to the book they're based upon, because it's a UNIVERSAL RULE that the book is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS better than the movie. <p> People who decide whether to read based on whether they liked someone else's "vision" of the book--- Well, those are the kind of customers that tick me off. They aren't readers. They're people who just want to have the movies they like in book form, so they can ACT like they read, but really they just want the story they JUST SAW ON SCREEN regurgitated to them in long form. <p> Please, Capone-- Don't be that guy. Read a book because you want to try the book, not because a movie made you do it. Avoid a book because it has bad word-of-mouth or poor reviews, not because the filmmakers fucked it up. <p> And incidentally, Pullman's series has been VERy well-received. It's one of the only books in this genre that outright makes radical religion the enemy. You're fucking yourself if you skip the books because the movie had too much flash and not enough soul.
Dec. 10, 2007, 11:14 a.m. CST
by Frank Black
You are smart and argue a good angle. In fact, I don't hate anyone but I get tired of the white noise of religion and that is why it is best kept private. I don't like being told what I should believe anymore than anyone else likes being told their religion is a fantasy. Frankly, Compass appealed to me because it just seemed a little different than the garbage I have sat through in the last few years. (Even the LOTR movies left me underwhelmed but I liked them a lot.) I'm tired of watered down, PG-13 generic stories for kids being the only thing playing in the theaters all of the time and then when a decent R rated film comes along no one sees it and complains that there aren't enough smart movies.
Dec. 10, 2007, 11:16 a.m. CST
by Frank Black
I tip my hat to you.
Dec. 10, 2007, 11:16 a.m. CST
It started off great, had some great ideas and then just sort of fell apart. <p>It seemed to get lazier and lazier as it went along. <p>The movie could have been a great opportunity to clear up some plot problems and lazy writing. But it sounds like they just vomited out a paint-by-numbers fantasy flik. <p>Sad, really.
Dec. 10, 2007, 11:24 a.m. CST
Well-placed rage, my friend. <p>As disappointed as I was in the Golden Compass book, I'd much rather read it again than see the movie. <p>You mentioned Frankenstein, among many, as an example of missing the heart of the book. I feel that way about Dracula. That is one of the most amazing and ingenious books I've ever read. The movies can't even touch it. <p>After I watched "Hitchhiker's Guide" I hoped that studios would steer clear of my favorite stuff.
Dec. 10, 2007, 11:29 a.m. CST
that the test of the film's worth is whether it inspires the reading of the book. He was not judging the BOOK's worth on the film. <p>Do you see the difference? The LOTR movies inspired people to pick up the books. That means the films did a good job of story-telling. <p>I understand your point and agree with it, but I think you may have misunderstood Capone's point just slightly.
Dec. 10, 2007, 11:35 a.m. CST
by Abominable Snowcone
For the record, the movie did not impress me but I do NOT consider myself a hater. I knew the deep stuff would go over my daughter's head, and I was curious myself to know what all the BS was about. So we went and paid to see it, DESPITE all the hub-bub. Because I too am down with the expansion of knowledge, not oppression thereof. So when I say the movie was MEH, I mean just that--I felt it was badly paced and a bit disjointed, and had some things that just weren't explained. Like, how did Lyra figure out how to use the elitheometer? One sec, she hasn't a clue, but after the gyptian pirates explain it, it all comes too easy. I was waiting for something more, like she's a 'special child' or 'the one,' like Neo, savior of the world in the Matrix Trilogy. I don't mean that the movie's message is stupid or that kids might not like it (my daughter did). In fact, I'm gonna get the book because I heard the books are better. Which is nothing new.
Dec. 10, 2007, 11:52 a.m. CST
One bear would have called the other a cocksucker.
Dec. 10, 2007, 11:53 a.m. CST
Is whether it inspired you to read the books? I suppose that's a reasonable way of judging a film's quality, but it's a piss poor method of choosing which books to read.
Dec. 10, 2007, 11:57 a.m. CST
Atheists are, of course, delusional; they misinterpret a lack of conviction as intellect. But they're fun, their snobbery always amuses the real intellectuals. As for fundamentalist Christians, haven't you learned a lesson from the likes of Jimmy Swggart? (one of the sleaziest, most subversive dicks of the past millennium). Celebrate your faith sans the blinders--and try to remember that censorship is a catalyst for failure (you draw attention to the very film that you're trying to disengage). Sure, THE GOLDEN COMPASS tanked (at least partially a consequence of the backlash) but you probably provoked the DA VINCI CODE into appending an extra $20-$30 million to its gross. Nice work!
Dec. 10, 2007, 12:10 p.m. CST
by Frank Black
I had issues with the movie and I am guilty of lowering my standards out of desperation for something different but I liked it because it was just absurd enough to make me feel like a kid again (there was something very "1970's anything goes, we're all high making children's entertainment" about it, LOL.)
Dec. 10, 2007, 12:50 p.m. CST
by Abominable Snowcone
Right...but if you were an adult, there was some dialogue in the movie that wasn't very subtle, like when Mrs. Coulter explains that the "Authority" has all the power, and wants more, and doesn't want mankind traveling between the parallel universes, and that "cutting" daemons away is just a "small cut" (which I took to mean, baptism into the church, any organized church, but Catholic in particular). I haven't read the book yet, but I'm hoping it explains a little more about this, and why Mrs. Coulter told Lyra that they were special, and therefore got to keep their daemons because the processes of "cutting" was allegedly not yet perfect. My daughter for one thought it was awesome for everyone to have their own "pet." At age eight, she didn't quite get that the animals were in fact the spirits of the people themselves, albeit manifested on the outside rather than within.
Dec. 10, 2007, 12:54 p.m. CST
Fundamentalist or not, we're all sinners, and it was the SIN that brought him down. When people (usually athiests) rag on Christianity, they bring up the Swaggerts or Jimmy Baker or worse, the priests as "examples" of Christian hypocracy and use them to tar the religion. The reality is that God is God and we are not. I'm not a fundamentalist, but I'm sure they'd answer your "lesson learned by Jimmy Swaggert" question with; "Yeah, the lesson was clear! Wasn't it clear for you?!"
Dec. 10, 2007, 1:02 p.m. CST
"Atheists misinterpret a lack of conviction as intellect." Excuse me? I assure you it takes a lot more conviction to not believe than it does to lazily fall in line with the rest of the world's sheep. And considering your average atheist is leagues smarter than your average believer, I don't think you want to be pursuing that argument.
Dec. 10, 2007, 1:09 p.m. CST
...they are a miserable lot.
Dec. 10, 2007, 1:24 p.m. CST
Dec. 10, 2007, 1:34 p.m. CST
after reading the book i was very excited about this film, not only because of the great story and scope of the book but also of the great hype the film has gotten and how well new line delt with LOTR. This movie was one of the biggest disapointments for fantasy lovers. In my opinion even bigger than Eragon. This movie is so rushed and the characters so under developed and the scenes so down played the whole thing left me feeling uninvolved and uncaring about characters that i already cared about. I don't see the other movies being made unless TGC redeems itself with a nice long extended and recut version on DVD!
Dec. 10, 2007, 2:22 p.m. CST
Though taking no joy in it, I predicted thid could be a flop for the ages, before any reviews and w/o seeing the film. The biggest key was out of control costs, $50 M in reshoots, $60 M in marketing. It was already in a huge hole. Add to that being a new, untested 'franchise', a potential boycott, and the last nail, mediocre reviews. To be sure, we need to wait for overseas confirmation. Another fantasy film from August that was not promoted, STARDUST, looked like a flop until doing 2.5 times the domestic BO overseas. I would never have thunk it, but now it actually will turn a modest profit. Nothing will totally stop the COMPASS train wreck, but it likely won't challenge the unofficial bomb of all time, this year's EVAN ALMIGHTY. If nothing else, merchandising will keep it out of the $130 M EVAN-range loss. Like SUPERMAN RETURNS' ace in the hole, COMPASS has already raked in the licencsing fees, billed optimistically as the next LOTR. Even if the action figures gather dust on the shelf and the video games are under no one's tree, that register has rung. But, I can't see there being sequels to this.... I AM LEGEND is also set up to fail, but of course not at these levels.
Dec. 10, 2007, 2:36 p.m. CST
Very rarely does a character in a movie actually voice my sentiments. It wasn't a complete failure, though. I'm curious as to how the books go. If it's half as provocative as I've heard I just might give it a chance.
Dec. 10, 2007, 3:07 p.m. CST
Capone wasn't saying that he chooses his books based on movies, only that if the movie inspired him to pick up the book then the movie has accomplished an important part of storytelling. <p>Reversing it and saying that the reviewer only picks books that movies inspire him to read is a logical fallacy.
Dec. 10, 2007, 3:48 p.m. CST
you don't know much about atheists, do ya?
Dec. 10, 2007, 4:11 p.m. CST
..if it inspires you to play the video game.
Dec. 10, 2007, 4:31 p.m. CST
Oh dear god, don't play the video game. It's TERRIBLE! Even worse than a movie tie-in usually is, and that's saying something!
Dec. 10, 2007, 5:22 p.m. CST
seing as how they scooped out anything interesting in the original story, so as not to offend middle America (yeh thanks you creationist, backward looking retards - yeh, you know who you are)? Some girl, James Bond and some talking polar bears? A big battle between good n evil. (cough) Narnia (cough) Lord of the Rings (cough cough). That was bad enough. One for bittorrent on a rainy day I think, unless I get bored picking and eating my own ear wax. Let's face it, who'd get bored of that? Mine tastes like banana.
Dec. 10, 2007, 5:26 p.m. CST
...and function within the same intellectual calibre as the Christians whom they chastise. It's just a pathetic attempt at superiority ("Duh, I'm smarter."). Again, the real intellectuals laugh at this snobbery (Isaac Asimov referred to himself as a humanist, never yielding to this sort of sophomoric conformity). Have you ever read the works of atheist, Dr. Antony Flew? Sorry, former atheist. You haven't? Doesn't surprise me. Enough with this debate. But, by all means, hide behind the facade of pseudo-intellect. When you're not annoying, at least you're good for a few laughs.
Dec. 10, 2007, 6:03 p.m. CST
But I am happier, generally, as a Christian. I also don't think I was delusional as an atheist. Just . . . incomplete. Certainly, I kept an open mind and was interested in everything, otherwise I might not have made the jump from non-believer to believer. But I was definitely an atheist. Not a humanist, not an agnostic . . . You can't judge all atheists by the one's that like to talk about how smart they are and how everything has to be proven to them and how they are "rationalists" and love science and those that believe in God are irrational and despise science and truth . . . not all atheists take that position on religion, merely the dogmatic ones who, for all practical purposes, practice their atheism as a form of religion.
Dec. 10, 2007, 6:08 p.m. CST
You're welcome. :)<p>BTW, when is AICN gonna announce that the Prince Caspian trailer is OUT???
Dec. 10, 2007, 6:12 p.m. CST
HERE:http://http.vitalstreamcdn.com/bvimflash_vitalstream_com/PrinceCaspian/InternetTrailer/Caspian_Trlr1_Rev1_480.mov<p>Don't forget to remove the spaces...
Dec. 10, 2007, 6:46 p.m. CST
Accompanied by a Talkback not unlike this one. Or is this another trailer?
Dec. 10, 2007, 6:51 p.m. CST
Dec. 10, 2007, 6:51 p.m. CST
Dec. 10, 2007, 7:02 p.m. CST
That was startlingly pretentious for a comment accusing people of snobbery.
Dec. 10, 2007, 9:10 p.m. CST
C.S. Lewis appropriately made the best description of arrogant atheists, such as Pullman who view themselves as superior intellectuals over believers and over "backward looking creationist retards" (as described by metaluna in above post). C.S. Lewis describes these so called intellectuals, "men without chests": "It is an outrage that they should be commonly spoken of as Intellectuals. This gives them a chance to say that he who attacks them attcks Intelligence. It is not so. They are not distinguished from other men by any unusual skill in finding truth .... It is not excess of thought but defect of fertile and generous emotion that amrks them out. Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary: it is the atrophy of the chest beneath that makes them so.... As the king governs tby his executive, so Reason in man must rule the mere appetites by means of the 'spirited element.' The head rules the belly through the chest - the seat as Alanus tells us, of Magnanimity, of emotions organized by trained habit into stable sentiments. The Chest - Magananimity - Sentiment - these are the indespensable liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man. It may even be siad that it is by this middle element that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal." Lewis shows the influence of G.K. Chesterton who emphasized complete thinking, and how that is only represented by traditional Christianity, and how leaving God out is incomplete thinking, and defies common sense. According to Chesterton: "...Man is to be studied in his whole manhood...man is not a man without his body, just as he is not a man without his soul. A corpse is not a man; but also a ghost is not a man." The atheist has a dualistic approach to knowledge, dividing the physical from the spiritual. Their reason is based only on the material, and the appetite. They fail to use the reason of the heart, and fail to see that the heart has reasons. They are men without chests.
Dec. 10, 2007, 9:58 p.m. CST
Pullman, from his limited materialist perspective fails to communicate the true desires which come from the soul, and ultimately something bigger than ourselves, not something smaller, trapped within us. The Fall had little to do with sex, yet atheists such as Pullman make the same mistake of interpretation as the fundamentalists they despise as simple minded. The 'nakedness' realized was the lack of power, and the temptation was to gain that power, in direct defiance of the Creator. The sin was pride, and the power they would be 'clothed' with was already promised, but pride led to trying to take it without paying the price, without being ready, wihout true growth. This is the temptation of Edmund from the White Witch, an easy kingship out of pride and selfishness. But he genuinely repents. For all the criticism of the first Narnia film, at least it had heart and an understanding of what we truly desire deep down, objectively, as all good myths and fairy tales do. Both Tolkien and Lewis believed that myth and fairy tale communicate Truth. They reflect true desires. Pullman's so called story is the reverse that goes against common sense. It lacks magnanimity. It lacks heart. Pullman is a real life White Witch.
Dec. 10, 2007, 11:08 p.m. CST
Seriously. Athiests honestly believe by removing the god-hating from the film that it's been robbed of it's interesting, earth shaking soul. Hardly. That would've just added another layer of un-profound, Hollywood pseudo-intellectualism to this mess. Athiests are delusional egomaniacs.
Dec. 10, 2007, 11:39 p.m. CST
by Sick Fixx
Can it be done?
Dec. 11, 2007, 12:20 a.m. CST
Thanks for appending a very articulate forum to this talkback. Atheists are fueled not on intellect but an artificial intelligence: deflated egos, disappointed lives, who desperately try to compensate with only the pretense of superiority. Think of them as comedy relief. Anyway, with the advent of firings at the New Line office (a consequence of a commercial disaster called THE GOLDEN COMPASS), it's time to split. See you in the next talkback, buddy.
Dec. 11, 2007, 2:56 a.m. CST
a smart friend told me that it's not about ropey CGI or casting; it's main faults are the reduction of a clever tale for adolescents to a meaningless fairy-story for kiddiewinkies. They should have done a LOTR; made it for teenagers and adults and let the kids who can stomach the scares and the philosophy tag along or scream for the DVDs for Christmas.
Dec. 11, 2007, 2:56 a.m. CST
Atheists KNOW they're cool.
Dec. 11, 2007, 3:01 a.m. CST
You have faith because you're American. that's it; it's a feature of your gun-toting, mass-consuming, alienated culture. If you weren't from a fucked-up society where schoolkids mow people down with automatic weapons, you'd have graduated to freethinking status. You're believers for the same reason people from Sierra Leone believe in witchcraft. Because you're education was fucked up. The moment money starts pouring back into your public school systems and you can all afford to go to college without borrowing loads of money, faith will start to drop again.
Dec. 11, 2007, 3:38 a.m. CST
Good to know.
Dec. 11, 2007, 3:41 a.m. CST
you clearly have terrible taste or you've been brainwashed. Only a fundamentalist would think that badly computer effects driven excuse to print money had any heart whatsoever, or was concieved by the studio to have any heart, while simultaneously slagging The Golden Compass, which might as well be the same fucking movie. You're bias is deafening.
Dec. 11, 2007, 3:46 a.m. CST
You know who else didn't have a great love for the "creator", the founding fathers of this country, who were mostly diests. Especially Thomas Jefferson, who found organized religion repugnant. SO hen you are talking about those to whom religion holds no power, realize you are talking about them as well.
Dec. 11, 2007, 3:53 a.m. CST
Going back over some of your old posts it's amazing how brazenly you throw around the word intellectual, when you haven't said a single thing that one would even vaguely describe as intellectual. You simply spout philisophical gobbledygook about how man is incomplete with his soul. A true intellectual would never be so callous as to so simple mindedly tie a mans soul in with religion.
Dec. 11, 2007, 7:06 a.m. CST
The story was unapealing, Craig's scenes were more like a cameo appearance and the action was very minimal for a pg-13 movie.Kidman was as convincing as a villain as much as John Travolta's performances in The Punisher & Broken Arrow. (meaning null & dull) And not to mention the Asian elderly couple two row behind who could'nt shut the fuck up throughout the movie. Pan's Laberynth was much superior than this overhyped shit with a stupid cliffhanger ending..me and my girlfriend was like "what the fuck"? Don't count on me being there for the "supposedly" sequel.
Dec. 11, 2007, 7:43 a.m. CST
An deists generally, and not via revisionist historians who want to make the founding of a country with "God" in all its founding documents (and, later, even on it's currency) into secular humanists. Jefferson believed very deeply in a creator, and had great respect for organized religion, though he gave many clear indications he considered the miracles of the Bible and supernatural intervention to be hyperbole and even distracting. Deists believe in a higher power, dude. Read the Jefferson Bible sometime. He snipped the miracles, but he did not reduce by a white what Jesus had to say on the subject of the Father.
Dec. 11, 2007, 7:46 a.m. CST
Never saw Passion of the Christ. Not my kind of thing.
Dec. 11, 2007, 7:47 a.m. CST
Because they don't believe in anything? Wow, that's sooooo cool. Radical! Outrageous! Truly, truly, truly outrageous.<br><br> Yeah, whatever.
Dec. 11, 2007, 7:50 a.m. CST
I was raised by one atheist parent, and one who never went to church. I went to secular public schools, and to a very liberal art school for college. I was an atheist until I was 33 years old. Now I'm a Christian. I don't own a gun and I've never shot anything.<br><br>I'm afraid that doesn't fit your prejudicial template for all people who believe in something other than their own navel. Freethinker, indeed.
Dec. 11, 2007, 8:32 a.m. CST
thegreatwhatzit and call7000 say "Atheists are delusional;" Delusional? Because they don't believe in something that doesn't have a speck of evidence to support its existence? BELIEF in something without evidence of its existence is what DELUSION is, which is the very opposite of what atheism is. Project much? You says that atheists "misinterpret a lack of conviction as intellect." Lack of conviction? What does conviction have to do with anything? You can have a conviction toward believing in leprechans, that's doesn't mean they're going to suddenly wink into existence. biggles2_22 says "Atheists are a miserable lot"? Last I checked, I've been pretty darn happy. But let's say in some alternate universe, not believing in some magical god will make you miserable. Does THAT make said god wink into existence? As for Asimov, he defined a humanist as "Being a Humanist means you place your confidence in the power of reason and compassion, as opposed to the empty promises of unquestioned authority -- either the still-powerful superstitions of ancient religion or the self-serving propaganda of many modern governments." Sorry to disappoint you, thegreatwhatzit, but many atheists are also humanists. And guess what, thegreatwhatzit, Dr. Antony Flew is STILL, and always has been, an atheist. He states so right here (remove the spaces): http://www.rationalistinternational.net/article/20041212_en.html Laughable board trollers like these get spanked easily every time. It's just too easy. Not only are you being exposed as liars, but your trolling posts still haven't provided evidence of your gods. Come on, guys, you can troll better than that. And to quote THOMAS JEFFERSON: ""Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies."
Dec. 11, 2007, 9:43 a.m. CST
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable right . . . " <br><br>God... has formed us moral agents... that we may promote the happiness of those with whom He has placed us in society, by acting honestly towards all, benevolently to those who fall within our way, respecting sacredly their rights, bodily and mental, and cherishing especially their freedom of conscience, as we value our own." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. <br><br>"How necessary was the care of the Creator in making the moral principle so much a part of our constitution as that no errors of reasoning or of speculation might lead us astray from its observance in practice." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 1814.<br><br>"I believe... that [justice] is instinct and innate, that the moral sense is as much a part of our constitution as that of feeling, seeing, or hearing; as a wise Creator must have seen to be necessary in an animal destined to live in society." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1816.<br><br>"The moral law of our nature... [is] the moral law to which man has been subjected by his Creator, and of which his feelings or conscience, as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on French Treaties, 1793.<br><br>"The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society, our Creator has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain." --Thomas Jefferson to James Fishback, 1809.<br><br>"Our Saviour... has taught us to judge the tree by its fruit, and to leave motives to Him who can alone see into them." --Thomas Jefferson to Martin Van Buren, 1824.<br><br>"I consider ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Augustus B. Woodward, 1824.<br><br>"I have sworn upon the alter of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."<br><br>And: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."<br><br>And it can go on and on. Thomas Jefferson believed in a higher power, and was a rationalist and free thinker, and believed in open inquiry and scientific investigation and so on.
Dec. 11, 2007, 10:15 a.m. CST
your sledgehammer adolescent sarcasm obviously deafens you to my earlier, lighter satire. Believers should really stay away from humor and creativity; your art is rubbish. That's why the arts and entertainment world is dominated by liberal fags, college graduates and atheists.
Dec. 11, 2007, 10:23 a.m. CST
should learn what 'a higher power' actually is. Einstein was a deist; that is; he believed in 'a higher power'. Which is impersonal, inhuman, unthinking, unable to love; which might as well be worshipped as 'BEING' or 'THE UNIVERSE' as pantheists do, or scientist. As I worship the cosmos. But ceratinly NOT as a man, as a personality, as a judge , as the creator of Heaven and earth or as ANYTHING recognisable from ANY monotheist religious text bar Buddhist scripture. Deists do not believe in God the Father.
Dec. 11, 2007, 10:25 a.m. CST
Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back, there.<br><br>Sepulchrave is truly outrageous. Truly, truly, truly outrageous. You're totally rad, dude. Totally! With awesomeness.<br><br>Sheesh. Do you ever get tired of admiring yourself in the mirror?
Dec. 11, 2007, 10:29 a.m. CST
There is nothing inherent in the concept of a higher power that requires it to be impersonal, inhuman, unthinking (!) and unable to love (however you define that objectively). Deism is distinguished from pantheism for a reason. Otherwise we'd call it "panthedeism".<br><br> And you graduated from college? Wow.<br><br>You worship the cosmos? Are you sure? Because it sure sounds like you worship the Sepulchrave. Just saying.
Dec. 11, 2007, 10:30 a.m. CST
There can be only one! Didn't you ever see Highlander?
Dec. 11, 2007, 10:31 a.m. CST
Unless you're a Catholic, and then . . . There Can Be Only Three!
Dec. 11, 2007, 11:46 a.m. CST
It occurs to me that I wonder if any Hollywood studio has ever sued any political organizations responsible for boycotts for damages. Seems like other companies have done so for far less.
Dec. 11, 2007, 12:08 p.m. CST
Man, that the is the gayest little reference I have ever heard on this board. And I'm gay. Did you have a Jem doll when you were little? Plus; lots' of enlightment bigwigs, from Voltaire to jerrefson, were deists whilst laughing at the foolish superstitions of Catholic peasants, biblical literalists and a manipulative priesthood. Diests started the French Revolution, guillotined the king and abolished the Church. They didn't kowtow to the Church. They were very different men from any pope, from Mike Huckabee, Billy Graham or the anti-intellectual morass of modern US snake-handlers and anti-evolutionists. Argue about EVOLUTION? What other civilized country could even IMAGINE doing that? It's like arguing about thew existence of electricity, or gravity.
Dec. 11, 2007, 12:09 p.m. CST
I really wanted this movie to do well, as the books' message needed to be spread to a larger audience. Please, please, please read these books. Pullman never once denounces faith, only organized religion and controlling governments. He supports spirituality. If the angry christians would actually READ what they deem offensive, they would see the same. Unfortunately, most who call themselves "spiritual" are, in reality, only mindless followers of the church. Don't let the movie turn you away from these wonderful books. The characters are much more interesting in written form. I promise.
Dec. 11, 2007, 1:08 p.m. CST
I never said anywhere in my posts that the founding fathers were athiests. I was saying they are not governed or bound by any religion. Secular logic made up their actions, not a belief in God. For them God was just sort of....there. Not mettling in the affairs of man. It's not anything even resembling Christianity. And like your friend thegreatwhatzit you seem to be pulling shit out of the air with this "athiests think their cool" shit. Maybe you were base enough a person that your former athiestic self didn't believe in God for the same reason teenagers smoke cigarrettes. It's like saying Christians are all Christians because they are the mindless weak who cannot cope with life without fatalistic mysticism. You see how stupid that sounds? Well that's exactly how you come off. BTW, I'm not an athiest.
Dec. 11, 2007, 2 p.m. CST
I don't think you can 'choose' to believe anything, you just believe what you believe. So if you're an atheist, that's ok, as long as it's genuine. Just don't be an asshole. Same goes for believers. On this board so far, it's the believers like thegreatwhatzit who are acting like the biggest assholes. Oh yeah, and catholics aren't monotheists. Trinity? Mother Goddess? Semi-divine pantheon of saints? That's old-school pantheism.
Dec. 11, 2007, 2:13 p.m. CST
People are anti-evolution because evolution doesn't exist. <p>Darwin himself didn't believe the theory held water. And, by golly, it doesn't.
Dec. 11, 2007, 2:27 p.m. CST
every word you just typed is completely full of shit. <p> There's a point to be made that a religion that can't adapt to an ever-changing world, and an ever-expanding field of knowledge about our world is doomed to wither and become irrelevant. That's what baffles me about the Intelligent Design or Creationism movements- they're just so astonishingly counter-intuitive, so stridently hostile to neutral, reasonable ways of thinking that are not in and of themselves anti-religious, that it reminds me of the Shakespeare line: "thou doth protest too much". There's something very competetive about it, as if the creationists believe that science is an adversary, like a visiting football team, horning in on turf that was already claimed by religion. How very macho. In fact, science isn't actually a belief system or an ideology, it's a method, and one that is built on the premise that it can be wrong, often is wrong, and will never be complete. It's a process, whereas the creationist's version of Christianity is air-tight and hermetically sealed against even the most passive investigation. One thing that always amuses me about Creationists is their adopting of the empirical state of 'theory' as applied to Natural Selection. "Darwin's theory is just that- a theory", they announce, triumphantly, firmly believing that they have felled Goliath with his own stone. Well, Like I said, Science is a method, and in fact, all Science, with the exception of a fraction of the observable stuff and phenomena that make up our immediate surroundings, is "just a theory". That's how science works. The empirical process begins with an idea, opinion, or leap of intuition, or most often, an unexpected accident, then a hypothesis is formed. Once the hypothesis has been put through a series of tests it becomes a theory. At any point along this line if anything goes wrong, if the hypothesis falls apart under evidence, it never reaches the level of theory. A theory becomes justified when everything goes right, when all tests and evidence add up to what the theory posits, but something like evolution can't become fact because unless someone could sit down and observe the process over millions of years, and take notes, empirically speaking, it remains 'just a theory'. But a theory with almost 200 years of rigorous, mounting evidence and experimentation that supports it. With each and every field of scholarship in science that has developed since victorian times, geology, chemistry, biology, anthropology, etc. the theory of evolution has been supported. Not once, not the slightest hint that there might be something wrong with it has ever shown up in all that time. So "Just a theory" actually means a great, great deal. <p> Or you could ignore that because it you think it's "icky".
Dec. 11, 2007, 3:59 p.m. CST
It's ironic that the method of science that prevents it from labeling evolution as fact is the thing most infinitely sensible about it, and the thing that creationists try to use against it, without any sense.
Dec. 11, 2007, 4:51 p.m. CST
I mean the racist who hates all people of color and bases that on his "facts" is he a free thinker and a smart person? I wouldn't think so, i'd call a person like a low life. So what does that make people like you who hate anyone who chooses to belive in God? According to you it's because we were raised poor with no education, if we had money and better public schools we would be smart?My problem with those statements and others like them are simple, I could care less. I've read HDM, wasn't anything to me at all. You will find that most NORMAL people of faith don't care one way or another. I see people who disagree with the way I think on a daily basis,the thing is I keep my beliefs to myself and wish the best for all mankind,regardless of what they put there faith in.I have nothing against Scientologist or Athiest,why would I? I thought you were supposed to judge people on idividual merit instead of lumping everyone you disagree with under one label so that you can make it easier to loathe them.I know the current way of thinking is that all christians are the Bush supporting Pat Robertsons of the world,that blow up abortion clinics and who act like that crazy chick in The Mist,but it's just not the case. I just wonder why the same people who are right minded enough to profess tolerance for everyone regardless of race,or sexual prefferance can hate anyone who votes different than them or anyone who belives in God? I guess not going to poor public school enables a person to be smart enough to know who deserves to be hated.
Dec. 11, 2007, 5:33 p.m. CST
nice post. Obviously, the non-assholes on both sides of the God argument are the real minority.
Dec. 11, 2007, 7:53 p.m. CST
And nor should one have to. That is why they call it faith. There are a lot of good things about religion that are quite beautiful that don't really have to be justified. All I ask is that you keep it out of the government and quit trying to sabotage anything that doesn't agree with it. You live your life the way you want to. You don't want to read books by Pullman? Don't. But I don't see the need to give a fuck if anyone else does. You didn't see people getting all up and arms about Narnia. because nobody on the other side of the fence cares if a kids movie with Christian themes is in theaters. Nor should you care if people expose their kids to different ideas.
Dec. 11, 2007, 11:07 p.m. CST
First of all, read above post entitled 'Men without chests' and I'll bet Dr. Marc Antony Flu fits right in, probably a scrawny bastard. Religion, faith, and God cannot be absolutely proven, but that doesn't mean evidence does not exist that points to their reality. Logic and reason actually support faith and the existence of God when one uses imagination and the 'eyes of the heart' to see the complete truth. It is irrational to view the world in a narrow materialistic way, and to claim it is the only rational way to view the universe cannot be proven rationally. You ask for evidence, what about history? What about miraculous events? Rationalists criticize authority yet when they struggle to define what they consider to be rational, they end up relying on authorities themselves, that have a very limited scope of the universe; authorities that presuppose the universe is a certain way without proving it. Lewis again shows his great wisdom over intellectual wimps like Pullman and Dr. Phil Flu: "Do not be afraid of the word authority. Believing things on authority only means believing them because you have been told them by someone you think trustworthy. Ninety-nine percent of the things you believe are believed on authority. I believe there is such a place as New York. I have not seen it myself. I could not prove by abstract reasoning that there must be such a place, I believe it because reliable people have told me so….every historical statement in the world is based on authority. None of us has seen the Norman Conquest or the defeat of the Armada. None of us could prove them by pure logic as you prove a thing in mathematics. We believe them simply because people who did see them have left writings that tell us about them: in fact, on authority. A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life." Two opposite extremes seem to illogically deny authority as the basis for our knowledge, beliefs, and ratio overly simplistic and incomplete answers to the opening questions above. One extreme is pure skepticism or agnosticism, claims to doubt all authority. The extremist skeptic claims absolutely 'one cannot know.' The problem with that answer is that if you don't know, how can you make an absolute judgement or conclusion that something cannot and will never be known? At some point the skeptic must become skeptical of his or her own skepticism. The pure skeptic concludes that there are no answers, therefore stops asking questions, or at least has no real logical use for them. The pure skeptic never trusts. Therefore, in cases where trust is the more logical alternative than doubt, like when we trust a very close friend or family member, the skeptic makes an unreasonable choice. The majority of the time it will be more logical to trust the loved one than to be suspicious of them. The pure skeptic suffers from illogical and unreasonable paranoia.(Resulting in paranoid conspiracy theories resembling Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code and Pullman's Golden Compass).share a similar illogical and unreasonable premise. As G.K. Chesterton points out in The Everlasting Man "Superstition recurs in a rationalist age because it rests on something which, if not identical with rationalism, is NOT unconnected with skepticism. It is at least very clearly connected with agnosticism….But it IS an agnostic sentiment for it rests on two feelings: first that we do not really know the laws of the universe; and second that they may be very different to all we call reason." Although the agnostic and the superstitious appear to be on opposite extremes, the reason for straying from the center is based on the same premise: that logic and reason cannot be applied to belief in the spiritual and ultimately God. However, to deny logic and reason to be applied to God is denying God part of his very definition as the Creator, the First Cause of the universe. When the very definition of God is misunderstood and He is placed 'above' logic and reason, his image is left to the whims of human desire only, and reverts back to the superstition of primitive, pagan-like beliefs, or to a cold, unimaginative 'rationality' without sentiment and heart that fails to see that the truth is composite, as Chesterton also points out, it is more like picture than a pattern. A story, not an outline. He uses evolution as an example. Evolutionists see history as an outline, but in reality it is not a line but jagged, full of shape. Common sense tells us there is no smooth transition from an animal to a man, unless you completely ignore the mind, the soul, and the heart and above all man's creativity. Says Chesterton: "It is the simple truth that man does differ from the brutes in kind and not in degree; and the proof of it is here; that it sounds like a truism to say that the most primitive man drew a picture of a monkey and that it sounds like a joke to say that the most intelligent monkey drew a picture of a man. Something of division and disproportion has appeared; and it is unique. Art is the signature of man."
Dec. 11, 2007, 11:23 p.m. CST
I can only offer that it is my 'belief' that the oldest cave drawings are about 35000 years old, (of course, this assumes the earth is older than 6000 years) in a cave that also presents traces of Neanderthal man. Arguably, an example in history, supported by science, of a man more like a monkey than what we would recognize as human, drawing a picture of a man. Art is the signature of sentience, a phenomenon reached through evolution, not divinely placed in the heads of pre-fab bodies. Or maybe, it's both?
Dec. 11, 2007, 11:40 p.m. CST
As Chesterton wisely points out, to say something is 'like' something is to imply a difference. I doubt there is enough scientific evidence to support a view that the man who did the cave drawings was 'more like a monkey', and where does that leave the 'evolution' of the mind if such a primitive man could produce art. These are not primitive images, certainly recognizable. How 'primitive' could this mind have been? Again let me stand on the shoulder of a giant and quote Chesterton: "The simplest truth about man is that he is a very strange being; almost in the sense of being a stranger on the earth. In all sobrieety, he has much more of the external appearance of one bringing alien habits from another land than of a mere growth of this one. he has an unfair advantage and an unfair disadvantage. he cannot sleep in his own skin; he cannot trust his own instincts. he is at once a creator moving miraculous hands and fingers and a kind of cripple. He is wrapped in artificial bandages called clothes; he is propped on artificial crutches called furniture. his mind has the same doubtful liberties and the same wild limitations. Alone among the animals, he is shaken with the beautiful madness called laughter; as if he had caught sight of some secret in the very shape of the universe hidden from the universe itself. Alone among the animals he feels the need of averting his thought from the root realities of his own bodily being; of hiding them as in the presence of some higher possibility which creates the mysery of shame. Whether we praise these things as natural to man or abuse them as artificial in nature, they remain in the same sense unique. This is realized by the whole popular instinct called religion....it is not seeing straight to see him as an animal. it is not sane. it sinds against the light; against the broad daylight of proportion which is the principle of all reality. It is reached by stretching a point, by making out a case, by artificially selecting a certain light and shade, by bringinig into prominence the lesser or lower things which may happen to be similar. The solid thing standing in the sunlight, the thing we can walk round and see from all sides, is quite different. It is also quite extraordinary; and the more sides we see of it the more extraordinary it seems. It is emphatically not a thing that follows or flows naturally from anything else."
Dec. 11, 2007, 11:41 p.m. CST
Why can't art exist that questions the existence of God without you having a hissy fit, hoping it fails, and saying ludicrous things like Narnia has heart and soul while Golden Compass doesn't. The only, and I mean singular reason one would say something so ridiculous is because narnia was written by a Christian and Golden Compass wasn't. If if was GC written by Lewis and Narnia by Pullman you would be saying the exact opposite. The reality is is that they are both mediocre childrens films starring talking animals that if watched won't make you think one iota about God or religion. Quote all the philosophy you want but it's clear you have no respect for art with an opinion on an invisible man in the sky that challenges yours ergo you have no respect for art at all.
Dec. 11, 2007, 11:47 p.m. CST
Best quote of the talkback! Absolutely hilarious. Try it again when you can drop the imagination part. So is that you you and your ilk justify your worldview (and I'm not talking about religion when I say worldview) Antonius? By telling yourselves you ARE in fact using logic, just with a little bit of "imagination"? And what exactly are these historical "miraculous events" you speak of? The great flood in which moses built a boat and put two of every animal on Earth on?
Dec. 11, 2007, 11:49 p.m. CST
...is what I meant the title to be, I was trying cave-man speak. And it is your view that is counter-intuitive.
Dec. 12, 2007, 12:01 a.m. CST
That would make Samsquaches point of view counter intuitive. All you did is quote a bunch of flowery words from Chesterton that says in essence "Since we laugh and think and do things animals don't do, we could not in any way be related to animals". Chesterton sounds like quite a humanist indeed, but there is nothing even remotely approaching logic or science behind what he is saying. Just admit that you have no more proof than anyone else about the existence of God. And for God sakes stop making proclamations about bullshit as if they were facts. BTW you want to know how we know that the man who made those cave paintings was not the man we know today, because we have fossils that we can measure the age of using a fucking SCIENCE called carbon dating.
Dec. 12, 2007, 12:04 a.m. CST
Why would I "drop the imagination part"? It's about a complete perspective of the universe. Seeing the universe as an image, a picture, a work of art. Instead of sarcasm, explain how faith is illogical if you are so certain. Where is the contradiction in faith? In religion? In the existence of God? In the reality of miracles? Where is the contradiction? There are many miraculous events reported in history witnessed by great numbers of people simultaneously, so give me one logical reason to doubt them, just one. Explain why logic and reason cannot support faith, miracles, and the existence of God. You can't prove God doesn't exist. If he exists, if a First Cause exists, then based on that premise, miracles are logical. Faith is logical. The premise itself is not illogical or a contradiction. So, give it your best shot, and when you're unable to show the contradictions, and come up with your own circular argument, I don't think you'll be laughing anymore.
Dec. 12, 2007, 12:13 a.m. CST
I can't prove God doesn't exist, nor would I want to. In fact I hope he does exist and he is good and benevolent and we all grow wings and join him when we die. And faith is no more illogical than atheism. If you want to be logical, admit you don't know. But I don't have to disprove it, it's completely fucking irrelevant to every day life in any way that humans haven't come up with on their own. No fire falling from the sky or men walking on water. No miracles to prove, no matter what you say. I don't care what you believe, just keep it out of my life. The only reason I give a damn about religion is because religious people feel the need to push it on others and integrate it into our government. Live you own fucking life and be quiet about it. If a women wants an abortion, that's her choice. If a man wants to have sex with or legally marry a man, that's his choice. If embryonic stem cells could even remotely potentially hold cures to cureless diseases, let them explore. The list goes on and on.
Dec. 12, 2007, 12:16 a.m. CST
Flowery? And yet you miss the point entirely. IT's still a man, and there are many pre historic cave drawings without supposed traces of some missing link, which i'm sure is still closer to man than monkey despite your wish to scratch your ass in public. But let me go back to authority...are you a scientist Industrykiller, because if not, you sure do put a lot of faith in it. Here's the problem, evolution is still just a theory, the fossil evidence is lacking for the transitional forms, and Darwin predicted we would be tripping over them by now. It hasn't happened. But the point is, if anyone is guilty of illogically connecting science to God it is you. Science is very limited, and it makes a major presupposition: that only the material world exists, because its method of proof depends on material data. The very method of proof science depends on cannot prove its assumption: that only the material world exists. Again, what Chesterton says is extremely logical, even if poetic; if not, where is the contradiction? I doubt you could point it out since you missed the point entirely. Simply put, a worldview based on science is extremely limited and based on an assumption that cannot be proven. Logic points to the existence of a First Cause, a Creator. We are in his image. We create. We draw pictures. We have different forms of architecture. Animals do not.
Dec. 12, 2007, 12:16 a.m. CST
That the world is more than 6000 years old, that my friend is a cold hard fact. And that evolution, while not yet an exact science, has a great deal more scientific evidence behind it than us just all appearing out of nowhere. I don't know why you people fear evolution so much, it doesn't in any way disprove that a God could have created creatures that eventually evolved. It just disproves a story in the Bible about a talking snake in a tree. Which, admit it, deep down you don't really believe anyway.
Dec. 12, 2007, 12:25 a.m. CST
To Chesterton saying that "Since we do things animals don't do, we could have never come from animals"???? I don't need to contradict that Antonius, it's a retarded correlation. If I went outside looked up in the sky and said "Look I see something in the sky that I can't quite make out, it must be a unicorn." would you feel the need to systematically deconstruct that? It would be self evident that I'm wrong since it's an outlandish conclusion to jump to given everything we know about the world. Yes I know, genius, that animals do not have things like music, and buildings, and ice cream, and the slinky. That is why we have a title for how we happened called "evolution". You see at one point in time we didn't have those things either, but we changed and EVOLVED over thousands of years and now we do. You see how that works? By the way are you a philosopher Antonius, because if not you put an awful lot of faith in philosophy. You see how fucking stupid that sounds? That is how you sound. As if I need to go to college and study anthropology to take scientists seriously. Like there is some sort of scientist cabal gathering in the woods as we speak talking about how they are going to fuck over the catholic church by making shit up.
Dec. 12, 2007, 12:27 a.m. CST
I have no sympathy for someone who supports abortion based on ignorance. Do you even know the origin of the abortion on demand we see today? Nazi eugenics. The founder of Planned Parenthood had close friendships with these Nazi scientists who wanted to play God. To paraphrase Peter Kreeft, there are three answers to every question: yes, no , and evasion. Death, the touching of time to eternity, eliminates the third option. You can evade the question, but it will catch up with you someday, and science won't be able to help you.
Dec. 12, 2007, 12:28 a.m. CST
be a wise ass and get me on "at one point in time we didn't have those things either, but we changed and EVOLVED over thousands of years and now we do." I would like to inform you that the theory of evolution is much more complicated than that. I'm just assuming you know this so I don't have to sit in front of my laptop for an hour explaining it.
Dec. 12, 2007, 12:32 a.m. CST
Yes, no, and evasion are the answers to every question, then you are seriously fucking warped. Amazing what the world must be like in black and white. And yeah, all abortion is a Nazi plot. i'm sure Joseph Mengele is planning to reveal himself at any time and laugh at how he's fooled us all.
Dec. 12, 2007, 12:37 a.m. CST
Does the Earth rotate around the Sun, or does the Sun rotate around the Earth? Begin serious, philosophical discussion... now! <p> Antonius- Chesterton sounds like a very convincing man, his language is lyrical and compelling, but for all its floral prettiness, it's still wrong. He obviously didn't understand the basic principles of natural selection, and neither do you. Unfortunately, neither of you has the forgivable sheild of stupidity to hide behind, so it must be zealotry. My condolences to your wit and character.
Dec. 12, 2007, 12:49 a.m. CST
I'm sure it would be easy for you to argue with someone who takes every single word in the Bible literally, but most traditional Christians understand one must interptret the Bible, not just the language, but the intention of the author. Much of it is true myth. Much of it historical reporting. One must distinguish based on what the author of the particular portion intended. The Bible is not a scientific document, so exact age of the universe not an issue. God exists in eternity. The truth conveyed is that the universe was created by God, by a First Cause, the Uncaused Cause. Science has already confirmed the Big Bang, that the universe itself came from nothing, as stated in the Bible. So the idea that we all came out of nowhere isn't so far fetched, and not contradicted by science. Evolution doesn't scare me because it still wouldn't contradict necessarily the truth of God as Creator, but like Chesterton, it still seems to go against common sense. There would seem that there would have to have been very sharp transitions, not smooth and slow ones as evolution states, and it certainly does not have enough evidence of transitional forms to prove these slow and smooth transitions from animal to man. Where is the slow transition of the evolution of the mind if the first primitive man could draw a recognizable and complex picture? As far as miracles go, they have occurred in history, have been reported. What logical reason do we have to doubt them? Those who doubt them only base this skepticism on their own prejudice against the reality of miracles. They are caught in a circular argument. The miracle itself is not a contradiction. If the spiritual is a reality, they are perfectly logical. The premise cannot be disproved.
Dec. 12, 2007, 1:09 a.m. CST
I really see nothing outspoken atheists are doing now to earn the title of "asshole," especially in light of the statistics that atheists are the most marginalized group in this country and that the very term atheist continues to be stigmatized. It should frighten any rational person that more than half the country thinks that someone who simply lacks belief in the extraordinary claims of religion is amoral and that atheists today are in largely the same position as homosexuals were 50 years ago w/ many in the proverbial closet. And when you consider that the most the latest high profile atheists have done is write books and promoting their books on political talk shows, I find it sad that there's so much hostility towards them coming from a predominantly liberal crowd. Maybe I'm wrong but at least I'd expect a forum of cinephiles would be predominantly liberal. I don't know if this hostility comes from people who simply don't view religion as having a major effect on their lives and the world, but if this is the case, I think it's a woefully naive perspective particularly after 9/11. I think that it's the extremely important we have these kinds of conversations and take a reasonable critical critique of religion, which is the most powerful form of political ideology but manages to always get a free pass in public discourse. We can criticize Communism all we want but the moment some bluntly and unapologetically criticizes religious ideology and they're suddenly an asshole because we all must respect the religious beliefs of others. Why should we respect delusional thinking? Any1 who can ignore the overwhelming evidence of Evolution in the modern age either doesn't understand what Evolution says, is flat-out delusional, or both. And I see nothing wrong w/ telling someone that. If someone said they didn't believe in Germ Theory because they claimed, oh because it's only a theory and not a fact, no one would hesitate to call them a delusional moron...except of course if they said it was part of their religion. I think Sam Harris says it best: "George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd.”
Dec. 12, 2007, 1:11 a.m. CST
Nor does it prove the evolution of the mind. As Chesterton explains: "It is useless to begin by saying that everything was slow and smooth and a mere matter of development and degree. For in the plain matter like the pictures there is in fact not a trace of any such development of degree. Monkeys did not begin pictures and men finish them; Pithecanthropus did not draw a reindeer badly and Homo Sapiens draw it well. The higher animals did not draw better and better portraits; the dog did not paint better in his best period than in his early bad manner as a jackal; the wild horse was not an Impressionist and the race-horse a Post-impressionist. All we can say of this notion of reproducing things in shadow or representative shape is that it exists nowhere in nature except in man; and that we cannot even talk about it without treating man as something separate from nature. In other words, every sane sort of history must begin with man as man, a thing standing absolute and alone....an excellent test case of this isolation and mystery is the mater of the implusle of art. This creature was truly different from all other creatures; because he was a creator as well as a creature. Nothing in that sense could be makde in any other impage but the image of man." Evolution doesn't explain the appearance of the mind. "There is not a sshadow of evidence that this thing was evolved at all", says Chesterton about the mind "There is not a particle of proof that HITS transition came slowly, or even that it came naturally. In a stricly scientific sense, we simply know nothing whatever about how it grew, or whether it grew, or what it is. There may be a broken trail of stones and bones faintly suggesting the development of the human body. There is nothing even faintly suggesting such a development of the human mind." And industry, my point about you not being a scientist is that your beliefs are as much based on authority as one who is religious, but your authority is extremely limited, and based on assumption that cannot be proven.
Dec. 12, 2007, 1:20 a.m. CST
'People are anti-evolution because evolution doesn't exist. Darwin himself didn't believe the theory held water. And, by golly, it doesn't.' ...are BRAINDEAD Chriistian yank propaganda that does NOT exist in the developed world outside the USA. It's the scientific equivalent of Holocaust denial.
Dec. 12, 2007, 1:21 a.m. CST
The FATHER BROWN detective writer? Please.
Dec. 12, 2007, 1:21 a.m. CST
The FATHER BROWN detective writer? Please.
Dec. 12, 2007, 1:25 a.m. CST
These are your heroes. Not that I don't like Tolkein, but please; ONE developed 20th century scientific mind is worth fifty novelists on this issue. Religious belief decreases with the level of your education. FACT. The most secular nations on earth have the best education and the most successful societies (not the USA, by the way) FACT. There is absolutely NO difference in belief in God, belief in angels, demons, magic, voodoo, miracles, eternal life and fairies. they are all equally scientifically void. Say you believe in fairies. Please.
Dec. 12, 2007, 6:13 a.m. CST
No, Superman could beat up the Hulk!<br><br>And, yes, Jem is Truly Outrageous. Truly, Truly, Truly outrageous.<br><br>Does anyone here, on either side of these issues, believe there's actually going to any progress? For the most part, nobody seems to actually be reading what the people who disagree with them say, at least in full, or, if they are, they are intentionally misinterpreting it or selectively interpreting it, and--as in common in Talkbacks, I've noticed--some people are arguing against people and then attributing things to them that were actually said by somebody else.
Dec. 12, 2007, 6:22 a.m. CST
Atheists always puzzle me they knock people for believing in a creator, yet they with all their great intelligence are unable to create a simple single cell life form from non living matter. Something they claimed happened all by itself without the need of a creator, so random chance is smarter that they are?
Dec. 12, 2007, 6:25 a.m. CST
Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, although it's clear a belief in a higher power informed his life. While God did not directly meddle in the affairs of man, the fact that He created the universe was not inconsequential.<br><Br> George Washington was a Christian, John Adams was a Christian, John Hancock was a Christian, Benjamin Franklin (invented the frigging glass harmonica, have you heard of it?) was a Christian, Alexander Hamilton was a Christian, Patrick Henry could certainly sound like a Christian.<br><br>Patrick Henry was almost certainly, like Jefferson, a Deist.<br><br>Another fun quote from Thomas Jefferson: "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."<br><Br>Yeah, he sure hated himself some religion.
Dec. 12, 2007, 6:29 a.m. CST
It's straight to Hell for you, then. Heretic.
Dec. 12, 2007, 6:32 a.m. CST
They were all black, and little berets, and they listen to poetry about how effed up life is and then, instead of clapping (get this!), they snap. They are really cool. And they are also freethinking supersmart rationalists who know everything! Ask them: they'll tell you themselves!<Br><br>
Dec. 12, 2007, 6:34 a.m. CST
Was almost certainly a Deist, although it's certainly possible Patrick Henry was a Deist, although we only got what he said.
Dec. 12, 2007, 8:12 a.m. CST
Jesus Christ man, next are you going to be telling me to get off your lawn and stop listening to The Kinks? BTW I'm not sure on what grounds you are arguing that all of those men are Christians. Especially Franklin, who wasn't very religious at all. And Thomas Paine was ALMOST CERTAINLY a diest?? A bit of an understatement. Umm have you ever read The Age of Reason? The guy was a fervent diest. Oh and here is another fun quote from Thomas Jefferson for you "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity." You know, he sure sounds like kinda sorta a diest. Sorry champ, but no justification for a Christian nation can or ever will be found.
Dec. 12, 2007, 8:19 a.m. CST
and it's a sick sad day when I have to defend this, is based on facts that can be studied based on things we know to be absolute in the world. Studied by men who can be talked to and reasoned with. Teachings that can be proven. And assumption that can easily be proven, you know given that science is defined as "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method". You see the "general truths" part in there. And as for taking things on authority, Yeah I may have never been to Italy, but if I want to see the leaning tower of Piza it's just a plane ride away. Unlike Heaven, where no one has ever been ever and lived to tell about it and has no pictures of. You are one trippy mother fucker if you think that scientific facts in general are unproveable you know that Antonius, I want whatever you are smoking.
Dec. 12, 2007, 8:21 a.m. CST
it's just a hell of a lot more powerful. And if God created us who created God?
Dec. 12, 2007, 12:18 p.m. CST
That's what I said: cool. All Christians are fat and shop at Old Navy.
Dec. 12, 2007, 12:30 p.m. CST
wear a beret. That is all.
Dec. 12, 2007, 12:46 p.m. CST
Chesterton sounds convincing, but with even the slightest investigation of the scientific principle of natural selection, you'll find that his and your questions are addressed, elegantly and even more convincngly. I urge you to read something, anything, on the topic. I think what you (and Chesterton) really have a problem with isn't the idea that the mind evolved, but that this implies that the soul itself must have also evolved. There really isn't anything so remarkable about the mind evolving, scientifically speaking. opposable thumbs and a healthy pack mentality, as well as some other physiological attributes, led to all kinds of leaps of intuition over the years. And it's millions, not thousands, of years, it's difficult to wrap one's head around that, I know, but it makes quite a difference. <p> I've addressed in earlier posts the idea that science does not require of itself a perfectly rendered map in order to prove its own merit, that in fact, it's a process, not a belief system. This is crucial- just because science cannot point to every step along the evolutionary path does not amount to a dismissal of this or any other theory. IT IS A PROCESS. We are still finding evidence, we are still learning about it, after millions of years, we've only been studying it for less than 200. And yet, in all that time, nothing yet has been discovered that disproves the theory. All it would take is one piece of evidence, a fossilized footprint in the wrong geological place, a skull that shouldn't exist in the fissil record, even something microscopic (and believe me, there has been a concentrated search for just such a piece of evidence) but nothing yet. Just because we can't show Chesterton the roadmap, doesn't mean the terrain doesn't exist. The same argument is used everyday by people with faith. The difference is, ours is an open-minded process, seeking answers we may not expect or want, whereas faith already has the answer it wants, and dismisses whatever doesn't fit arbitrarily. <p> let me ask you- if some of the Bible is myth, and some of it is fact, by what method do you determine the difference? It certainly isn't scienific, but there must be one, surely?
Dec. 12, 2007, 1:03 p.m. CST
The E comes BEFORE the I.
Dec. 12, 2007, 1:43 p.m. CST
Not to toot my own horn, but with the last few posts I've submitted, there's at least a pretty articulate and easy-to-read primer on if not the actual principle of Natural Selection, the basics of how science functions. If you still need convincing, read something that isn't on an AICN forum. However, there's nothing much more I can say. If you still refuse to listen to your own intellect screaming from behind the veil of willful ignorance, I can't help you. Science is not a threat to your faith. I truly believe that science and faith can be reconciled beautifully, the only people who in this day and age are still refusing to listen to reason need to construct elaborate cages of smoke and mirrors just to maintain their own blindness. Science has no agenda, other than to fulfill the human impulse to seek truth, to see what lies beyond the scope of our understanding. I believe that faith, ultimately, has the same goal, but belief systems like creationism, in the 21st century at least, do violence to that very human instinct. There's nothing wrong with believing in God, and there's nothing wrong with not believing in Him. What is wrong is denying yourself the full experience of the world, and what it means to be alive, because of a misguided fundementalism that doesn't allow for an expanded view beyond a 2000 year old text. Please, let yourself grow up.
Dec. 12, 2007, 3:56 p.m. CST
Evolution is a mathematical impossibility. The evolution of mankind takes so many steps from simplicity to complexity it would be like hitting the jackpot four billion times in a row. Combine that with the evolution of every living thing at the same time and the chances of evolution have gone beyond calculation. Add to that symbiotic relationships where two species had to evolve simulatneously and we're out of orbit mathematically speaking. On top of that, figure out how evolution anticipated what it would need for future steps toward complexity. Natural selection doesn't account for one creature mating with another because they have a mutation that may possibly someday be beneficial a thousand years later . In fact, Natural Selection tends to weed out mutations - fighting against evolution. <p>Point is, the Theory of Evolution has actually held back science in many respects. Forcing those who study their fields to somehow hang their findings on an outdated notion. Just read National Geographic and see how Evolution is shoe-horned in. Please, just give us the observations. Don't jam them onto a theory that is highly suspect. <p>Science is based on observation. Evolution obviously cannot be observed, it is only assumed. When new observations conflict with the evolutionary model they are regularly discarded. Not very scientific. <p>For instance, the massive hole found in the universe recently contradicts every known evolutionary model. That is a huge problem for evolutionists. This is not just an anomaly but a very big hole in the theory itself. <p>In every field of Science there are huge problems in Evolutionary Theory. But mathematics alone skunks the theory entirely. <p>You'll peg me as a Creationist, I'm sure. But that tact simply marginalizes the opposition. <p>I, too, believe science and faith reconcile beautifully because both are borne of mankind's observation and study of his environment. <p>I imagine that it will finally become acceptable to ditch evolutionary theory within our lifetimes and scientists can be free to observe their data without hindrance.
Dec. 12, 2007, 4:12 p.m. CST
is the scientific equivalent of saying, "Unicorns don't exist." <p>Unfortunately, evolution is the prevailing trend in science these days and so it seems like heresy to dismiss it. <p>But, like all trends, it will crumble under its own vacuousness.
Dec. 12, 2007, 6:39 p.m. CST
While I did enjoy the movie quite a bit, there was way, way too much explication. In the first book, the reader barely knows anything about dust and the magisterium. Personally, I just zoned out all the dust talk when reading the book until they started discussing it in more detail in book 2. They should have done the same thing in the movie. They tried to explain far too many things and ended up making it very confusing. <br><br> IMO, it should have been a story about a girl on the run in an imaginative, new world trying to save her friend from bizarre, Dr. Mengele-like experiments. That's a good core story to start out with. Leave out all the muddy dust business and the magisterium, a group that barely played a visible role in the first book. And then end it with Lyra's dad opening a portal into our world and her stepping through with her daemon. That would have blown people away. <br><br> (And yes I remember that they went to another world first, but that wouldn't be as good an ending.)
Dec. 12, 2007, 9:11 p.m. CST
Thomas Paine was almost certainly a deist, as opposed to an atheist, which some have tried to claim he was (based on the Age of Reason). As far as Franklin being a Christian (or, at the very least, having pronounced Christian leanings), see his remarks at the Constitutional Convention. <br><Br>Nah, I'm just fuckin' with ya. All the founding fathers were devil worshippers, and everyone knows it.
Dec. 12, 2007, 10:33 p.m. CST
And SkeletonParty, stop shooting your mouth off about things you clearly don't know the first thing about. Evolution has nothing to do with going from simplicity to complexity; it's about the traits that best survive in a specific environment. Random chance has little to do with it. Hitting the jackpot four billion times in a row is astronomically impossible; the adaptation of the species' is inevitable, making your comparative probability embarrassingly inaccurate. Sure, mankind the way it is today might have been just one possibility in a cosmic roulette wheel, but Evolution has no specific end result in mind (so to speak), so in any event, if not homo sapien, than some similarly suited species would be here in our place. Two species don't have to evolve together; I have no idea where you came up with that idea. It's flat-out false. And as I said before, evolution does not anticipate an end result; you are ascribing human attributes to fundamental natural laws of the universe. If you understood even the slightest bit about Natural Selection or even the human-guided artificial selection that goes on every day, you'd realize why your argument about beneficial mutation is woefully ignorant. Your mixing up the scientific use of the term "mutation" with the one used in The X-Men. I suggest looking to science books instead of comics to learn about science. And the fact that millions of scientists in numerous disciplines depend on Evolution every single day, I definitely don't understand how you can say Evolution holds back science. That'd be like saying subtraction is holding back Mathematics. There's nothing "suspect" about Evolution. A Scientific Theory is the closest thing science has to a fact, unless you want to explain how suspect you think Germ Theory is or The Theory of Gravity. The Scientific Method ensures that science is not just assumed as you claim but proven by observable facts. We have an extraordinarily impressive fossil record, DNA evidence, vestigial body parts--all prove Evolution. So far, no evidence has ever refuted Evolution. And if you don't understand why science is an infinitely better way of understanding the universe than the kind of making shit up as you go along approach of religion, you're delusional. You are a liar at best, possibly a fool, or at worst a sophist.
Dec. 13, 2007, 7:16 a.m. CST
You are a ray of sunshine in a dungeon of creationists.
Dec. 13, 2007, 11:42 a.m. CST
I counted two (robe, Skeleton Party). Poor, oppressed Sepulchrave. Sheesh.